Follow us on social

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

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]
Analysis | Africa
China Malaysia
Top photo credit: Pearly Tan and Thinaah Muralitharan of Malaysia compete in the Women's Doubles Round Robin match against Nami Matsuyama and Chiharu Shida of Japan on day five of the BWF Sudirman Cup Finals 2025 at Fenghuang Gymnasium on May 1, 2025 in Xiamen, Fujian Province of China. (Photo by Zheng Hongliang/VCG )

How China is 'eating our lunch' with soft power

Asia-Pacific

In June 2025, while U.S. and Philippine forces conducted joint military drills in the Sulu Sea and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reaffirmed America’s commitment to the Indo-Pacific at Singapore’s Shangri-La Dialogue, another story deserving of attention played out less visibly.

A Chinese-financed rail project broke ground in Malaysia with diplomatic fanfare and local celebration. As Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim noted, the ceremony “marks an important milestone” in bilateral cooperation. The contrast was sharp: Washington sent ships and speeches; Beijing sent people and money.

keep readingShow less
President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and President of Russia Vladimir Putin
Top photo credit: President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and President of Russia Vladimir Putin appear on screen. (shutterstock/miss.cabul)

Westerners foolishly rush to defend Azerbaijan against Russia

Europe

The escalating tensions between Russia and Azerbaijan — marked by tit-for-tat arrests, accusations of ethnic violence, and economic sparring — have tempted some Western observers to view the conflict as an opportunity to further isolate Moscow.

However, this is not a simple narrative of Azerbaijan resisting Russian dominance. It is a complex struggle over energy routes, regional influence, and the future of the South Caucasus, where Western alignment with Baku risks undermining critical priorities, including potential U.S.-Russia engagement on Ukraine and arms control.

keep readingShow less
Netanyahu, Trump, and Syrian President Ahmed Al-Sharaa
Top photo credit: OpenAI. 2025. Netanyahu, Trump, and Syrian President Ahmed Al-Sharaa. AI-generated image. ChatGPT

Shotgun wedding? Israel and Syria go to the altar

Middle East

For half a century, the border between Israel and Syria on the Golan Heights was a model of hostile stability. The guns were silent, but deep-seated antagonism prevailed, punctuated by repeated, failed attempts at diplomacy.

Now, following the sudden collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in December 2024 and a 12-day war between Israel and Iran that has solidified Israel's military dominance in the region, the geopolitical ice is cracking.

In a turn of events that would have been unthinkable a year ago, Israel and Syria are in “advanced talks” to end hostilities. Reports now suggest a White House summit is being planned for as early as September, where Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would sign a security agreement, paving the way for normalization. But this is no outbreak of brotherly love; it is a display of realpolitik, a shotgun wedding between a triumphant Israel and a destitute Syria, with Washington playing the role of officiant.

keep readingShow less

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.