Follow us on social

google cta
51700950969_380a7c10ce_o-scaled

Biden’s new Africa strategy shouldn't focus on countering China

Confronting Beijing on the continent is popular in Washington but the US would do well to recognize that the Chinese are there to stay.

Analysis | Africa
google cta
google cta

As President Biden enters 2022, his administration is setting its sights on an Africa strategy. Secretary of State Antony Blinken visited the continent for the first time in November and promised the administration would “do things differently” to engage with African nations on more equitable terms, a commitment made in reference to China’s growing commercial presence on the continent. As Chinese investment in Africa has grown, so too have debates in the U.S. policy community over what, if anything, Washington should do to stop it. But if Biden’s goals for Africa are truly to strengthen democracy and build lasting economic partnerships, confronting China in Africa is not the way to go about it. To avoid making Africa policy into China policy, Biden must take his own rhetoric seriously.

The president appointed former Africa program director at the Center for Strategic and International Studies Judd Devermont to oversee the creation of an Africa strategy late last year, and the Biden administration unveiled a modestly-funded initiative to strengthen U.S.-Africa business. Increasing economic and political engagement equitably is a good instinct — despite high economic growth in most African states and a thriving African middle class, U.S. bulk trade with Africa was halved over the past 10 years. Restoring commercial ties and developing new opportunities for U.S.-Africa engagement ought to be the centerpiece for any long-term Africa strategy.  

Unfortunately, the new plan looks a lot like the old one. Foreign Policy magazine reported that the Biden administration’s Africa strategy is “aimed at weaving together Biden’s priorities on democracy and human rights, counterterrorism objectives, and countering Russia and China’s growing influence on the continent.” Previous administrations espoused similar goals but tended to sideline Africa unless there was a pressing crisis, be it civil war, Ebola, terrorism, or most recently, Chinese investment. 

There is a strong push for Washington to be more assertive on countering China in Africa. An entire policy community is now engaged in hand wringing about Chinese behavior. Commentators, think tanks, and media amplify every perceived security threat — from alleged debt-trap diplomacy, Chinese peacekeepers, the acquisition of mines (the author is not innocent from this one), and the growing deployment of Chinese private security firms, to the future of Chinese and U.S. bases in Djibouti, and the Belt and Road Initiative’s influence on African policymakers. To the U.S. foreign policy establishment, It all spells trouble.

Rather than pursuing escalation with China, however, U.S. Africa policy should accommodate Chinese growth and seek fairer terms for Americans and Africans alike. China’s efforts are an overt part of a state policy to deepen economic and political cooperation with developing countries. African nations accept Chinese assistance on issues from infrastructure to tackling COVID-19. Like the rest of the world, African consumers import Chinese manufactured goods, and it’s naïve to expect that Chinese manufacturers wouldn’t seek to buy raw materials and fossil fuels from African producers. 

The level of anxiety over China’s engagement with Africa threatens to overshadow U.S. policy on the continent. This is not to say that China’s behavior in Africa is something that the Biden administration should ignore, or that China’s behavior has benefitted the average African worker. In many cases, it has only favored the local political elites.

Chinese companies are notorious for only hiring African low-skill labor and reserving management positions for Chinese nationals. China has also been willing to support oppressive regimes and has generally shown itself unwilling to join the broader international community in discouraging abuse and democratic backsliding by local regimes. There is also the broader concern that as China’s interests in Africa grow, so too might its willingness to use hard power on the continent. These issues require a cleared-eyed U.S. policy, continuous pressure by Washington and its African and international partners, and direct engagement with China to address.

China is not immune to downturns and reversals on the continent. Recently, Beijing announced that it would cut its funding to the continent by a third over the next three years, partially due to concerns that COVID-19’s economic damage might prevent African borrowers from servicing their debts. China’s focus on working with political elites to secure deals can also backfire if those elites leave power. For all the concerns about trade and financial ties diminishing African sovereignty, it bears noting that Democratic Republic of Congo President Felix Tshisekedi is pressing China, which accounts for nearly half of the DRC’s exports, for fairer terms for its cobalt and copper extraction than it received under its previous president.

Focusing on great power competition risks incentivizing Biden and future U.S. presidents to weaken their push for equitable trade relationships and democratization on the continent. The risks are especially acute if competition with China plays out through proxy conflicts. During the Cold War, Africans paid much of the price for superpower competition as both the Soviet Union and the United States armed proxies in civil wars in countries from Somalia in the Horn of Africa to Angola in southern Africa. Many of those wounds are not fully healed.

Deepening relationships with African countries should have the side effect of discouraging China’s harmful behavior, not the other way around. It falls to Biden to set a new tone in U.S.-Africa relations, one that prioritizes commercial ties and respects the sovereignty of African countries. By raising the standards of what African leaders can expect from their trading partners, China will be pressed to meet the same or similar norms to keep up.


Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken delivers a speech on “The United States and Africa: Building a 21st Century Partnership”, in Abuja, Nigeria on November 18, 2021. [State Department photo by Ron Przysucha]
google cta
Analysis | Africa
Larijani's killing would destroy Iran war off-ramps for Trump
  • Mostafa Meraji / Wikimedia

Ali Larijani

Larijani's killing would destroy Iran war off-ramps for Trump

QiOSK

Why did Israel target Ali Larijani, and what are the implications if it is confirmed that he was killed?

I see three potential motivations behind the assassination attempt:

keep readingShow less
Senior US official resigns in protest of Iran war
Shutterstock/Ben Von Klemperer

Senior US official resigns in protest of Iran war

QiOSK

The intra-GOP debate over the Iran war has now reached inside the Trump administration, triggering the first senior-level resignation over the conflict.

Joe Kent, a former U.S. Army officer, resigned Tuesday from his position as the director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), saying in a letter that he could no longer “in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran.” Kent focused his blame on “high-ranking Israeli officials and influential members of the American media” for leading President Donald Trump down this dangerous path and deceiving him into believing that Iran posed an imminent threat and that a war could be won quickly and easily.

keep readingShow less
Iran Us airstrikes
Top photo credit: An Iranian couple carries a national flag as they walk past a police facility that is destroyed in an attack during a rally commemorating International Quds Day, also known as Jerusalem Day, in Tehran, Iran, on March 13, 2026, amid the U.S.-Israeli military campaign. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto)
Trump's capture of Maduro and the rise of 'global mafia politics'

Trump's ill-fated attempt to copy Israel's 'mowing the grass' strategy

Global Crises

Two weeks into the Iran War, the Trump Administration remains mired in a conflict without a clear casus belli and without an articulated end state. President Donald Trump’s latest extra-constitutional use of military force is but the latest in an alarming trend: the Trump administration believes it has solved the “forever war” trap by attempting to divorce war from discrete political objectives.

Trump and his allies appear to have decided that, by blowing things up without a clear political end state in mind, they can advance U.S. geopolitical interests while avoiding a quagmire. In practice, this is little more than a global version of Israel’s “mowing the grass” strategy, in which periodic military campaigns substitute for political strategy. Now, this notion of war without politics is dragging the U.S. even deeper into the messy business of Middle Eastern affairs.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.