The US sub-Saharan Africa strategy: A new era, or words on paper?

The U.S. government’s latest sub-Saharan Africa strategy aims to herald an important era of partnership with the region, promising to strengthen democracy and foster an open society. But while the new blueprint pledges more support for trade and digital initiatives, experts say the U.S. will have to prove that it is more than just rhetoric. The strategy, released earlier this month by the White House, has four main objectives, including advancing pandemic recovery, bolstering economic opportunity, and supporting climate adaptation as well as a just energy transition. Some of these priorities are not new. In fact, the policy states that it “recasts traditional U.S. policy priorities” to “bolster the region’s ability to solve global problems alongside the United States.” Although the strategy has generally been well-received and is seen as sending a strong message about U.S. engagement in the region, the document is big on promises but sparse on details. So, experts want to see how it will be implemented; the true test of whether these paper commitments will amount to decisive policy change and positive outcomes. An effort to overhaul the U.S.’s relationship with Africa from donor-recipient to a partnership is a notable change, experts told Devex. It’s also a clear effort to make regional engagement genuine and not just a battleground to compete with China and Russia — a predominant narrative during President Donald Trump’s administration. “Too often African nations have been treated as instruments of other nations’ progress rather than the authors of their own. Time and again they have been told to pick a side in great power contests that feel far removed from daily struggles of their people,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken said as he announced the strategy. This new framing brings U.S. engagement into the 21st century, Mvemba Dizolele, senior fellow and director of the Africa Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told Devex. “For the first time, the U.S. Africa strategy document underscores meeting Africans where they are and considering their agency,” and the challenge now is “how to bring together the instruments and institutions to work together” in a coherent policy, he said. Although it took nearly two years to release the plan, it could usher in a new relationship that is more focused on country priorities, joint objectives, and commerce. But that depends on how it is implemented, if slow-moving bureaucratic agencies can change long-ingrained behavior and if new initiatives can clarify and scale their missions. It also raises questions about how the U.S. might design and deliver its development programs differently and how new economic development priorities could be weighed against traditional objectives, including democracy building. The details Since the strategy’s implementation will be handled by more than a dozen agencies and initiatives are already engaged in countries across the continent, it offers insight into where the administration could focus without going into the nitty-gritty. “We will support development approaches that are environmentally sustainable, enhance food security, build social inclusion and gender equity that reduces fragility and mitigates conflict, and practice fiscal responsibility. Finally, we will continue to play a leadership role in coordinating and sequencing donor humanitarian and economic development activities,” according to the 17-page document. The strategy provides broad-stroke outlines of continued work on government transparency, support for democracy and democratic reforms, and ongoing work to address food insecurity and boost food production. It also affirms a focus on health and mentions peacebuilding efforts, particularly through the Global Fragility Act, which outlined a new U.S. approach to conflict prevention and stabilization. But, significantly, it also suggests a much greater concentration on commercial engagement, economic development, and climate issues, including adaptation and a just energy transition. The strategy lays out lofty goals. It asserts that the U.S. government will “build on existing programs and policies to increase U.S. investment and trade with Africa,” but it doesn’t specify how. It also fails to explain precisely how specific projects like Power Africa, which works to improve electricity access, or Prosper Africa, aimed at increasing U.S.-Africa trade, will change under the new strategy. Neither does it outline how Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment, the G-7 commitment to mobilize $600 billion for infrastructure, might play a part. And it offers only broad-strokes on target industries of U.S. engagement, including agribusiness, energy, entertainment, healthcare, and technology. One key focus is digital transformation. It hints at a new initiative and promises to help create an open digital ecosystem and ensure affordable internet access on the continent. On climate, the strategy indicates change or at least a relaxing of its opposition to natural gas projects, offering to work closely with regional governments to determine how to “best meet their specific energy needs,” including through efficiency, renewable energy, and gas infrastructure. "For the first time, the U.S. Africa strategy document underscores meeting Africans where they are and considering their agency.” --— Mvemba Dizolele, senior fellow and director of the Africa Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies How the strategy could impact development programs at U.S. Agency for International Development is unclear, and the agency declined to comment. However, USAID will soon have a new leader at the helm of its work on the continent: Monde Muyangwa was recently confirmed by the Senate and will soon take up her post as assistant administrator responsible for the Africa bureau. Reactions The change in rhetoric does, however, send a strong message to partners and adversaries that the U.S. is serious about engaging with the region and establishes a policy baseline, which is a good thing, W. Gyude Moore, a senior policy fellow at the Center of Global Development told Devex. But the change in approach will not happen overnight. It will take time for development architecture and foreign policy to pivot so that African nations are treated as partners. Unfortunately, the U.S. faces a credibility crisis, Moore said. The strategy comes on the heels of other African initiatives that have floundered, such as Prosper Africa, so the government needs to deliver on the strategy’s promises and objectives, he said. The language on climate could represent a positive change, but it’s just “language in a document,” noted Zainab Usman, senior fellow and director of the Africa Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “It’s encouraging, it shows there might be a shift in the previously rigid position of not financing any gas in Africa. Whether it is followed through in policy remains to be seen,” she told Devex. The test will be whether the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation will finance gas projects in low-income countries and what positions the U.S. Treasury takes on energy finance at multilateral development banks, Usman said. The U.S. needs to step up its commercial and trade relationships – it pledges to help create jobs and contribute to Africa’s economic development – but it must be clear and vocal about how it will achieve that, several experts said. Most African entities, be they governments or development finance institutions, “haven’t seen the U.S. as a big commercial player for a long time,” said Aubrey Hruby, an investor and co-founder of Insider and the Africa Expert Network, which connects entrepreneurs and investors. And while it’s a much-needed focus, this policy doesn’t necessarily change how the U.S. is viewed, Hruby said, adding that she’s not sure the administration “has figured out how to do commercial engagement in Africa.” What’s next As the U.S. government moves to implement the new strategy, experts have suggestions and a list of actions they view as a test of whether it has changed its approach. A major test of how serious the administration is will be the level of funding it requests for the continent in its fiscal year 2024 budget request. “That will be a key determinant of success if things are done differently or if it is repackaging existing initiatives,” Usman said. Also key are the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit and the COP 27 climate conference later this year. If the U.S. backs African priorities, it would signal that the strategy was being taken seriously, several of the experts said. But how can the U.S. work and think differently? The U.S. could support partner governments directly, Moore said. The administration and Congress have opposed providing funding directly to governments largely over corruption concerns, but Moore argues that even in countries that struggle with corruption, there are “pockets of competence.” A successful Prosper Africa initiative could go a long way to achieving some of the objectives, but it needs a clearly defined target, a bigger team, and a broader engagement strategy, experts said. It should also focus on industries where the U.S. has a clear comparative advantage, Usman noted. The U.S. and other G7 country agencies need to streamline their processes to be more competitive, because “to put it crudely, a completed functioning project is better than a perfect uncompleted project,” she said.