logo
How Trump's Africa strategy may become a double-edged sword

How Trump's Africa strategy may become a double-edged sword

BBC Newsa day ago

With US President Donald Trump on a cost-cutting warpath since starting his second term, aid to Africa has been slashed and now defence spending is in his sights - but could these approaches cost more in the long run?The phrase his administration presses on Europe to assume more of the costs of its own defence is "burden sharing". This is the challenge that Washington is now throwing down to African armies too - and they are far less comfortably resourced to take it on.Moreover, having paid dearly in lives and money, in the struggle to hold back the spreading reach of jihadist armed groups across the Sahel, the Lake Chad basin and Somalia over recent years, they could be forgiven for feeling that they already carry much of the burden - and for the sake not just of their own continent but the wider international community too.Benin, which has lost more than 80 soldiers in jihadist attacks since the start of the year, is just one example.
"The epicentre of terrorism on the globe" is how the Sahel was described a few days ago by Gen Michael Langley, who as head of US Africa Command (Africom) oversees the American military presence south of the Sahara.In briefings and interviews over the past few weeks, he has graphically outlined the threat that jihadist groups will present if their push southward towards the Gulf of Guinea succeeds."One of the terrorists' new objectives is gaining access to West African coasts. If they secure access to the coastline, they can finance their operations through smuggling, human trafficking and arms trading. This not only puts African nations at risk but also raises the chance of threats reaching US shores."Gen Langley has admitted that the current upsurge in militant attacks is "deeply concerning".Yet he has also repeatedly hammered home a core message: the US is minded to rein back its own sub-Saharan military operations, leaving local armies to take on more of the defence burden.Some 6,500 personnel are currently deployed in Africa by the US military and a 2019 list published by Africom mentioned 13 "enduring" American bases across the continent and a further 17 more temporary facilities.But some of these installations, including the purpose-built drone base at Agadez in Niger, have already been shut down, in particular after military juntas seized power in Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso since 2020.And it now looks as if the once-ambitious American operational footprint will be pruned back quite a lot more.Perhaps we will see more air power deployed from offshore to hit militant targets - Gen Langley says there have been 25 strikes in Somalia this year, double the 2024 total - but a much thinner permanent on-the-ground military presence."Some things that we used to do, we may not do anymore," he recently told a conference in Kenya's capital, Nairobi, that brought together chiefs of defence staff and other senior officers from 37 countries."Our aim is not to serve as a permanent crutch, but to achieve US security objectives that overlap with our partners. We should be able to help African nations build the self-reliance they need to independently confront terrorism and insurgencies."In the bluntness of his language Gen Langley reflects the stark change of outlook and policy that has come from January's change of power at the White House."We have set our priorities now - protecting the homeland."What matters to the no-longer-so-new Trump II administration, the general made clear in a Pentagon publication last week, is fighting terrorists - particularly those who might attack the US.Other priorities are countering the spread of Chinese military influence across Africa and protecting freedom of maritime navigation through key trade choke points such as the Strait of Gibraltar and the Mediterranean, the Suez Canal and the Bab el-Mandab Strait at the southern end of the Red Sea.
In some respects, the focus on training and capacity building that Gen Langley now expounds is not so very different from the approach of previous American administrations, Republican as well as Democrat.He lauds the National Guard State Partnership Program, through which individual US states have been helping to build the capacity of government security forces across Africa and other parts of the world - for the past three decades.France too is pursuing this approach, with the closure of bases in Chad and Senegal, while those in Ivory Coast and Gabon have been handed over to their governments, with only small French training teams left behind to work alongside African colleagues.However, in other respects, the Trump administration's Africa strategy represents a drastic shrinkage in outlook and - critics might argue - a conscious retreat from addressing the factors that drive instability, conflict and terrorism, particularly in the Sahel, which is among the poorest regions on the planet.For under President Joe Biden the US looked far beyond the military realm alone in its efforts to counter the both the growing reach of jihadist groups and other sources of violence. And Gen Langley, as Africom chief, was an articulate exponent of this much broader thinking.Only last year, in an interview with the Associated Press news agency, he outlined what he described as a "whole of government" response to the proliferation of conflict, stressing the importance of good governance and action to tackle the fragilities of African states and the impacts of desertification, crop failure and environmental change.This approach openly recognised that recruitment by armed groups and the spread of violence is fuelled not only by jihadist ideology, but also by a host of social and economic factors, including the stresses now afflicting farming and pastoralist livelihoods.Gen Langley himself does not seem to have abandoned this analysis, recently noting how Ivory Coast had countered the jihadist threat to its northern border areas by complementing security force deployments with development projects.He could equally have pointed to the success of a similar approach pursued by the president of Niger, Mohamed Bazoum, before he was deposed in the July 2023 coup.
But of course, these days Africom must operate within the context of a US foreign policy radically reshaped under Trump.There are even rumours that it could be downgraded to become a subsidiary of the US command in Europe and Gen Langley suggests African governments should tell Washington what they thought of this idea.Already the separate Africa unit at the radically slimmed down National Security Council at the White House is reportedly being wound up and integrated into the Middle East-North Africa section.Its director, Gen Jami Shawley, an Africa specialist appointed to the role only in March, has now been assigned to more general strategic functions.Addressing Congress this week, Gen Langley warned about China's and Russia's African ambitions: Beijing's agility at capitalising on the US's absence and Moscow's ability to seize military opportunities created by chaos and instability.Given these concerns, some might wonder if the general is discreetly signally his doubts about a slimmed down Africa strategy.Meanwhile, under the "efficiency drive" led, until recently, by tech billionaire Elon Musk, the American government's main international development agencies, USAID and the Millennium Challenge Corporation, have been effectively shut down.The spine of the new US economic engagement with Africa is now private sector trade and investment.But business generally needs to operate in a stable and secure context - which Africa's most fragile and violence-prone regions cannot offer.And in winding up the American development agencies, the Trump administration has stepped aside from funding the rural projects and social programmes that sought to address land and water pressures and lack of economic opportunity, the key drivers of conflict - and the jihadist groups' recruitment of frustrated rural young people.For the fragile regions that are the main sources of jihadist violence the US response is reduced to the purely military, and now it is seeking to shift even most of that on to the shoulders of African states that already struggle to respond adequately to a plethora of challenges and responsibilities.Paul Melly is a consulting fellow with the Africa Programme at Chatham House in London.
You may also be interested in:
The region with more 'terror deaths' than rest of world combinedFreed captive tells BBC of life in West African jihadist baseWhy Trump is on the warpath in Somalia'My wife fears sex, I fear death' - impacts of the USAID freezeTrump's tariffs could be death knell for US-Africa trade pact
Go to BBCAfrica.com for more news from the African continent.Follow us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa or on Instagram at bbcafrica

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Britain will pay with blood of its people if it doesn't wake up now – world must fear us, Penny Mordaunt warns
Britain will pay with blood of its people if it doesn't wake up now – world must fear us, Penny Mordaunt warns

The Sun

timean hour ago

  • The Sun

Britain will pay with blood of its people if it doesn't wake up now – world must fear us, Penny Mordaunt warns

BRITAIN will pay with the blood of its people if more money isn't spent to bolster the UK's defence, Penny Mordaunt has warned. The ex-defence secretary has urged the government to "wake up" and fund the UK 's security properly before it's too late. 5 5 5 Former Navy reservist Mordaunt argued that Britain is "emboldening our enemies" if we fail to invest in other forms of deterrence. She warned the consequences with be "incalculably grave" if the government does not open up the treasury purse. Ms Mordaunt told The Sun: "I'm confident that if you prepare for war, you invest in it, you train for it, then conflicts don't start. "Because your foes know it is not worth them doing that. They're going to lose. "The consequences of retaliation against them are too great." Ms Mordaunt's call was echoed by Sir Liam Fox - defence secretary from 2010 to 2011 - who warned the greatest threat to the UK right now comes from Russia. "Frankly, Putin is not going to be deterred by ambition," he told The Sun. "He's deterred by hard power." It comes as the government this month released its much-anticipated Defence Review, which provided a catalogue of recommendations on how to respond to external threats. The review - led by ex-Nato chief Lord Robertson - urges the UK to move to a position of "war-readiness". Britain is our enemy number one, Russians say as new poll puts UK above even Ukraine as Moscow's top foe This could be achieved through numerous commitments to scale up defence capabilities - including a £1.5 billion investment in an "always on" pipeline for munitions, the review said. But the Spending Review this week failed to fulfil the suggestions made by Lord Robertson - including to agree to Nato calls to ramp up investment to 3.5 per cent of GDP. US president Donald Trump previously demanded the UK boost defence spending to five per cent of GDP. It comes after Keir Starmer last week vowed to make Britain "battle-ready" and insisted the threat from Russia could not be ignored. Ms Mordaunt said: "The US President pressed us to go further. The Prime Minister said we needed to deliver on all fronts to keep Britian's people safe and their interests secure. "Not to do so would be a dereliction of his first duty. I was hopeful. "This week we discovered that, behind Treasury smoke and mirrors, defence will received nothing. "No extra funds, no plan to reach Nato's ask, no assurance to unlock industrial investment, no reassurance to donor allies like the US, or recipient allies such as Ukraine, that we are a serious partner. "The consequences of this are incalculably grave. "If the Prime minister believed what he told us about the threats we face then government must alter its plans." It comes as threats to the UK's security loom large from rogue nations such as Russia. And meanwhile the Middle East sits on the brink of war, with Starmer moving military assets in after Israel and Iran fiercely clashed. Vladimir Putin continues to throw soldiers into his meatgrinder war in Ukraine which shows no sign of stopping after more than three years. The bloodthirsty tyrant has repeatedly threatened Western nations - including Britain - over their support of Kyiv. A series of suspicious incidents including undersea cables being cut in suspected sabotage attacks are also a real cause for concern. And this week, Britain was declared as Russia's enemy number one - even above Ukraine and the United States. Ms Mordaunt warned: "We need to wake up Europe and we need to wake up in Britain. "If we don't start funding these foundational capabilities, we are going to end up having to spend more money in the future. "And it won't just be money we're spending. It will be the blood of our own citizens because we'll be in a conflict somewhere." 5 5 Sir Fox - who praised Lord Robertson's "sensible" defence review - insisted defence is the "number one" job of the government. He added: "The problem is the same problem we've had for a long time, which is that the governments like to make a lot of noise about defence - but the treasuries don't open the cheque books. "There's a real problem in European governments in particular, which includes outs, that we enjoyed the peace dividend after the Cold War and thought it would last forever. "And therefore we could increase our domestic spending on welfare and everything else. And that's fine because the defence budget could stay much lower. "Well, defence is not a discretionary spend. "If they were useless at anything else, the one thing they have to be good at is protecting British citizens from outside threats. "And that means they have to spend whatever is necessary in response to that threat, not what they would like to spend in a perfect world." Putin's Ukraine war toll tops 1MILLION by Patrick Harrington and Sayan Bose PUTIN's battlefield casualties have soared past the bloody one million milestone after 40 months of a war he expected to win within days. Ukraine's fierce resistance has ensured Russia has paid a mighty toll for every inch of land it has taken, and its advances remain painfully slow. The staggering milestone includes troops who have been killed or wounded so severely that they cannot fight on. According to the Ukrainian General Staff, one million Russian military troops have been put out of action since February 24, 2022, with 628,000 of those casualties occurring in the last six months. Burning through a million troops has won Putin just 20 per cent of Ukraine's total territory - mainly in southern and eastern areas - which is a humiliating conversion rate. Despite the devastating losses which have already ripped a scar in Russian society, experts fear that Putin is likely unaffected by the numbers, because mass sacrifice is ingrained in his battle plan.

BREAKING NEWS Albo locks in face to face with Trump at summit talks - as he prepares to deliver President a defiant message
BREAKING NEWS Albo locks in face to face with Trump at summit talks - as he prepares to deliver President a defiant message

Daily Mail​

time12 hours ago

  • Daily Mail​

BREAKING NEWS Albo locks in face to face with Trump at summit talks - as he prepares to deliver President a defiant message

Anthony Albanese has locked in his first face to face meeting with Donald Trump on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Canada as he prepares to stare down the US President on Australia's defence spending. The prime minister on Sunday confirmed a meeting had been set for Tuesday local time when the leaders head to Kananaskis, Alberta and plans to stand his ground against US demands for Australia to increase our defence budget. He also plans to raise the impact of Trump's trade tariffs on the Australian and US economies and push for an exemption, as well as the precarious future of the AUKUS nuclear submarines agreement, which is currently under review by the US government.

Defence industry debanking crisis puts national security ‘at risk'
Defence industry debanking crisis puts national security ‘at risk'

Telegraph

time19 hours ago

  • Telegraph

Defence industry debanking crisis puts national security ‘at risk'

British defence companies vital to national security claim they are being debanked because high street lenders see them as a threat to their reputations. In an alarming report about the financial challenges facing UK-based manufacturers, nearly three quarters surveyed said they had experienced 'issues' accessing basic banking services as major lenders become wary of taking on clients involved in arms. Companies said these issues included being barred from obtaining insurance, taking out loans and opening a bank account – which stops employers paying staff or suppliers. One business owner quoted in the report, which was carried out by the ADS – the trade body representing more than 1,500 small defence companies – said their bank account was shut down after being told they did not meet the bank's 'terms and conditions'. The report will raise fresh questions over the Government's push for Britain to become 'battle ready' as it prepares to counter growing threats from countries such as Russia. Earlier this month, the strategic defence review said that Britain must be ready to once again 'fight and win' a full-scale war by rearming and upgrading its equipment. But according to the ADS, the companies that will be instrumental in achieving this objective are facing financial barriers so severe they 'risk going under'. Small defence manufacturers produce the vital parts used in military hardware, from the tiny components used in tanks to artillery cases. Of 200 owners surveyed by the ADS, 72 per cent reported issues accessing banking services. One owner quoted in the report said: 'Our bank account was actually forced to be closed and the only explanation they could offer was that they didn't meet our terms and conditions.' The report said banks' reputational concerns have been a 'key driving factor' in a more hesitant approach in providing their services to defence firms. Some banks, the report claims, described being lobbied not to support the defence sector, while others referenced pro-Palestinian protests targeting high street branches with perceived links to the Israel-Hamas war. Last June, activists from Palestine Action attacked up to 20 Barclays bank branches across the UK by throwing red paint and smashing windows as part of their demand that the bank divest from 'Israel's weapons trade'. One owner of a small defence company, quoted in the report, said: 'The financial sector has completely decimated the defence industry, they'd rather have an account with the local car-wash than a firearms dealer or somebody in the defence industry.' Santander and Lloyds closed 300 accounts belonging to 'public administration and defence' companies last year alone, according to correspondence with MPs on the Treasury select committee. Luke Charters, a Labour MP and chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on financial technology, told The Telegraph: 'As war rages on our continent and Russia continues to mobilise their wartime economy at pace, we have to ensure the [small defence companies] who will keep us safe aren't being blocked from banking access. 'Our sovereign defence financing capability is not only a matter of national security; but an absolute necessity at this moment in time. We cannot risk it being undermined by historical red tape, that has persisted for far too long.' A spokesman for the ADS said: 'The scale of the issue with regard to smaller businesses accessing financial services is increasing in magnitude – and without appropriate options, smaller businesses risk their ability to deliver on their full potential. 'The long-term effect of this is that exciting businesses – that deliver the capability responsible for protecting our national security – risk going under, or are unable to deliver the pace, scale and innovation that our increasingly unstable environment requires.' An interviewee for the report, described as a 'financial stakeholder', said: 'People chucking bricks at windows, ATMs, chucking paint at staff. It's horrible. 'Banks do take threats to their staff seriously and that is difficult. It doesn't get directed at the defence industry, or maybe it does, but banks are more visible. They've got this high-profile, high-street presence that people can target.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store