Africa Arena: US vs China

The re-election of Donald Trump continues to throw the world into the uncertainty of what his second term will bring. The nomination of his new Foreign Policy and Security team reflects much of Trump’s original agenda. That China is the primary threat with which the US has to reckon is possibly top of that agenda. That being the case, where does Africa sit in Trump’s view of the world?

Africa economic growth makes it the world’s fastest growing continent. Will that mean anything to a president who, in his first term decried African countries as shitholes and did not visit? Yet Africa has also been acknowledged by Trump to have “tremendous business potential” and there will undoubtedly continue to be US engagement with specific countries by the new administration. If there is no attention paid by Trump to the continent (as previously) will that be to the disadvantage of Africa? After all, Africa grew without him paying attention. On the other hand, the world is a different place and Trump may be forced to more closely engage with the continent this time around, if only because he is focused on China as his primary threat.

In his last presidential term President Trump’s foreign policy was somewhat anti-China, with unproductive trade tariffs and counter tariffs. This time around Trump has taken a more aggressive approach to China, positioning reinforced by his proposed key appointments. Peter Hegseth as Secretary of Defence, Marco Rubio for Secretary of State, Mike Waltz as National Security Advisor, and Elise Stefanik as Ambassador to the UN, and even those with domestic portfolios are united by their shared opinion that China is the greatest threat to the U.S. The only nomination to lie outside of this anti China bloc is Elon Musk, who maintains very strong trading ties with China through his various businesses; if he stays in favour he may play a mediatorial role on China issues. That will be no trivial exercise given Trump is fixated on the commercial threat from China, even above the military challenges the US is facing.

Those military challenges, and drains on the national treasury, include the conflicts in Ukraine, the Middle East and potentially in Asia. If Trump is able to bring stability to these issues he will be able to indulge his primary preoccupation – China. But that brings us back to Africa. What does Trump’s fixation on China mean for Africa?

In addition to promises of enacting 60% tariffs on Chinese imports, and additional sanctions on Chinese companies and trading, the U.S may seek to compete with China on the ground, primarily through a war of influence in the African continent. Under the Biden administration, the U.S was Africa’s biggest donor of aid, with over USD3.8 billion donated in 2024. However, both China and Russia were still able to make deep inroads into many countries across Africa. Earlier this year at the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) China pledged an additional USD50 billion of African investments over the next 3 years; this is a reduction in spending compared to previous years. As of 2022, over 10,000 Chinese firms are operating throughout Africa, promoting infrastructure, construction projects, and improving healthcare. Africa is host to over 30% of the world’s natural minerals, and is a gateway to significant international trade routes, such as the Red Sea. Compared to Chinese investment in the continent, the U.S has yet to take advantage of these resources through trade agreements.

But does the US want to take advantage of them anyway? The US drive to create their own sovereign ownership of critical strategic minerals means they desire to reduce dependencies on other states for these materials. On the other hand they will not be above preventing China from sourcing resources from Africa. That may mean Trump will engage African states in diplomatic, aid and commercial terms just to position themselves effectively against China.

That positioning could play out in East Africa. Arguably there is nothing in East Africa that the US wants or needs for its own economy. But it does not want China (or Russia) benefiting from East Africa either. Yet there is already substantial investment from China. The Standard Gauge Railway in Kenya, Ethiopia’s Grand Renaissance Dam, as well as investments in multiple industrial zones and technological advancement which have helped to shape East Africa into the growing economic player it is today. In addition to these material investments China has succeeded in exercising soft power and increasing its cultural influence in many African governments, strengthening diplomatic ties as well as economic ties. Ironically a scenario worth considering is that Trump’s tariffs may drive (cheaper) Chinese goods into Africa, and along with them increased Chinese influence. Whatever the Chinese influence – intentional or otherwise, the US faces a challenging catch-up process in order to compete with China’s influence over East Africa.

Some critics speculate that mutually beneficial trade agreements with various African governments may drive a reduction in corruption and placate some anti-corruption uprisings, such as the GenZ Movement in Kenya. Should the U.S invest productively, disaffected movements may regain trust in their governments through new transactional agreements in place of aid donations, reinstating some national stability but also making African destinations more attractive to foreign investment

An examples of the scope for meaningful U.S investment is the Lobito Corridor, consisting of a 1,300km railway connecting the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Angola, and Zambia to the Atlantic Ocean. Its aim is to strengthen regional connectivity and spur economic growth. This will also facilitate trade with the US and the EU. Other U.S-led initiatives are likely to be agreed under the Trump administration, as he attempts to compete with China’s growing influence. However, for this method to be successful Trump must address what all investors need to address – Africa needs to be seen as its own agent, able to engage fully in transactional agreements. Africa is too often viewed through a lens of vulnerability, requiring aid and security rather than investment. That might remain true for some of Africa but many states deserve a different approach. For its part China and especially the corporations which represent it need to also shift their view – Africa is not for exploitation but investment. World views that shape how Africa is approached always need fine tuning.

Will the new Trump administration represent a new world view in its dealings with Africa? In looking at Africa in its own right, possibly not. But viewed through the prism of the perceived threat of China, especially where China is active on the African continent, possibly. What will that look like? Given China’s investment in the continent to date, simply approaching countries and demanding they sever ties with China in favour of U.S interests is not an option. Trump is not going to take military action in Africa to further his interests. Rather Trump must compete with China as an investor in African countries, creating trade agreements and supporting trade opportunities, including supporting development of infrastructure that supports that business.

US interest in Africa but only because China is there first sounds like a shadow of colonial positioning. However Trump doesn’t perceive there is anything that Africa can give him. The only transaction that counts is one that helps him combat China. Which in turn begs the scenario that the US drops any interest in Africa because China, with it dramatically weakened economy, may well lose interest in Africa first.