Search

AbstractWhile the concepts of containment and degrading are distinct in their tactical implications, both have been integral to U.S Africa Command’s (AFRICOM) operational approach since its inception in 2007. This paper aims to elucidate this strategic transformation over the period of 2018 to 2023, employing an evaluative framework that incorporates threat assessment, strategic intent, and a cost-benefit analysis. By scrutinizing AFRICOM’s Situation Reports, this study establishes a correlation between the Flintlock military exercises in West Africa and the establishment of the Danab Special Commando Brigade in Somalia with the overarching containment and degrading strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United States no longer constitutes a monolith in determining Africa's future. In fact, no single country does—not Russia, not China. Africa has options, well noted in welcome statements by Department of State Secretary Antony Blinken: "Africa does not need to pick sides." Africans see double standards in US policy ("do as we say, not as we do"). Understandably, they turn to other options in seeking better outcomes for their countries. Partners such as the Russian Federation may seem unsavory to the United States, but rhetoric alone will not persuade Africans to drop them. High-level VIP visits leave them largely indifferent. Private sector investment could succeed where public efforts leave a dubious record. If US investors can overcome risk aversion, they may supplant or complement a public sector that Africans find unresponsive to their needs and wishes. Encouraged and energized, US investors could meet Africa's challenges, and mutually benefit from its rewards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the book "Tears, Fire, and Blood: The United States and the Decolonization of Africa" by James H. Meriwether, the author explores the history of US-African relations during the decolonization and post-colonial periods. The book examines the factors and actors that shaped the dynamics of these engagements over five decades. It highlights how the US initially supported colonial rule in Africa due to concerns about communism and strategic minerals, but eventually shifted its stance towards supporting majority rule. The book also discusses the US's approach to white minority regimes in Southern Africa and its eventual push for majority rule in Rhodesia. Overall, the book provides a comprehensive and historically grounded analysis of US-African relations during this period. [Extracted from the article]

The wider context of US foreign policy as a whole is sometimes missing, but Gasbarri has, while not saying the last word on the subject, made a significant contribution to our knowledge of how the Cold War in Africa ended and how US policy to Africa changed as it did so. Having identified a gap in the relevant historiography, Gasbarri has produced a well-ordered, clearly written, and for the most part a sophisticated account of the ending of the Cold War in Africa and how it affected US foreign policy in the years 1988 to 1994. US Foreign Policy and the End of the Cold War In Africa: A Bridge Between Global Conflict and the New World Order, 1988-1994: By Flavia Gasbarri. [Extracted from the article]

Between 1808 and 1820, the United States transformed the foreign slave trade from a legitimate form of commerce into a capital crime. This transformation reflected the determination of the American public and their representatives to extricate the United States from participation in the foreign slave trade. Yet, in the spring of 1824, a group of U.S. senators refused to approve the renomination of a customs collector who had sought to suppress the illegal slave trade emanating from his home district. A few weeks later, this same group of senators effectively scuttled the anti-slave trade treaty that the Monroe administration had negotiated with Great Britain. This article will expose why this group of lawmakers opted to weaken the nation's ability to suppress the illegal traffic. It will argue that – as members of William Crawford's faction – they set aside their ideological support for suppressing the foreign slave trade in order to secure the allegiance of another senator, James D'Wolf of Rhode Island, and then, with D'Wolf's crucial assistance, strike a blow against John Quincy Adams, who was one of Crawford's intraparty rivals in the upcoming presidential election of 1824. But the fallout from this particular deal – or "corrupt bargain," as such political horse-trading would soon come to be known – was not limited to the election. On the contrary, Crawford's faction had severely undermined the federal government's effort to suppress the slave trade in an ultimately futile effort to hurt Adams. This article will therefore reveal how even popular policy measures were vulnerable to electoral ambitions and that seemingly small political deals could have longstanding and widespread repercussions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the adoption of the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development, the United Nations has been actively disseminating seventeen (17) sustainable development goals (SDGs). The agenda calls for global partnerships for what it called "peace and prosperity for people and the planet". SDG number sixteen (16) seeks to promote peace, justice and institutional efficiency. This seems to be a long and complex process when it comes to Africa. The African continent is the most fragile in terms of sustainable development given that most of its regions are conflict-torn. When it comes to peace and stability as a prerequisite to sustainable development, it is clear that the northern, western, and Horn regions are now the most unstable in the whole continent. Amidst all this, the United States Africa Command was created in 2007 to safeguard peace, bring stability and provide prosperity in the region. Drawing on source materials, mainly from the US Department of Defense and its Africa Center for Strategic Studies (ACSS), along with the AFRICOM Posture Statements to Congress of 2018 through 2022, this paper argues that the creation of the US Africa Command did not achieve any of the set mission goals. To the contrary, it was an attraction factor to terrorist groups which spread all over the region. Through several datasets, the paper also shows that more threats became imminent and more countries were plunged into bloodshed. More failed states in the region would make it impossible for the implementation of any of the 2030 Agenda's SDGs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses how the continent of Africa has long been seen as peripheral to world affairs. It mentions that across the continent, but particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, climate change causes significant environmental problems. It reveals that overfishing, deforestation, mining, and intense climate-unfriendly agriculture compound an already serious situation.

According to the Africa Research Bulletin, the US has agreed to withdraw its troops from Niger following talks with the country's military-appointed prime minister. The decision to withdraw comes after the military regime in Niger terminated a cooperation agreement with the US. Protests have taken place in Niamey and Agadez calling for the departure of US troops, and Niger has shifted its alliance towards Russia since a coup in July 2023. Russian military instructors have arrived in Niger to train the country's army. [Extracted from the article]

The article aims at analyzing the development of the U.S. Africa Command during the three presidential administrations of George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump. According to the author, the attitude of individual American presidents and their administration to the U.S. AFRICOM is an accurate reflection of the approach to both the problems of African states and the place of Africa in the foreign and security policy of the United States. Since the foundation of the U.S. AFRICOM by the administration of G.W. Bush to D. Trump’s desire to liquidate the command. Trump’s attitude to Africa is also illustrated by the fact that he was the first American president since Ronald Reagan who did not visit any of the 54 African states. His two predecessors paid nine such official visits to African countries in total. It seems that despite many myths and fears that accompanied the birth of AFRICOM and during its first years of existence, the worst scenarios have not come to fruition. AFRICOM has not militarized Africa, it has not caused the drastic exacerbation of the rivalry with China in the region, and it has not become the military arm of US expansionism on the continent. What is more, even many skeptics among African state leaders have noted that it has thus far played and continues to play a positive role in counteracting terrorism, therefore, it has supported the stability of African countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the eyes of many European politicians, it made the US a less reliable ally: if Trump won the 2020 election, then the US might leave NATO and if Trump lost, then nothing would prevent "another Trump" from winning in the future. Many in Europe feared that a second Trump administration could mean the end of NATO. In his last year in office and in the run-up to the November elections, Trump's "America First" approach became more aggressive towards NATO and individual NATO allies, as well as towards the confidence-building treaties that surround the transatlantic relationship. Trump's "America First" Approach Throughout Trump's presidency, NATO was sidelined in his "America First" foreign and security policy approach. [Extracted from the article]

A deadly attack by al-Shabaab militants on a hotel near the presidential palace in Mogadishu resulted in the deaths of three people and the injury of 27 others, including civilians and soldiers. The attack broke a period of relative calm in the city and demonstrated the continued ability of al-Shabaab to strike despite military efforts against them. The group claimed responsibility for the attack, stating that the hotel served as a shelter for government officials and military officers. The United States and the African Union mission in Somalia condemned the attack, and the Somali government arrested 16 suspects, including the alleged mastermind, in connection with the incident. Al-Shabaab also carried out attacks on military bases in Busley and Bar Sanguni, resulting in casualties on both sides. The group has been able to seize control of several towns and villages in central Somalia, leading to concerns about the government's military setbacks in the region. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses developments in the foreign policy of the U.S. in Africa as of October 2020. Also cited are the adverse policies of the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump for Africa like his travel ban on African countries like Nigeria, the need to reset U.S. policy in Africa that is focused on economic justice, African youth, and democracy to avoid further disengagement, as well as the economic developments in the region with the support of several countries like China, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, and India.

The logic of "risk" is increasingly important in the study of global health politics. One recent contribution has even argued that risk is beginning to replace security as the defining logic of health governance and policy. Others dispute this on the basis that risk and security have always operated together in the "securitization" of disease. This article constitutes a theoretical intervention into this burgeoning debate. Does a stronger appreciation of risk warrant the diminishment of security? Are we looking at the "riskification" of health rather than "securitization"? Or would this miss the way these two logics might be complimentary or intertwined in ways that we are yet to theorize? I argue that the global health and securitization literatures are better served by an explicit consideration of risk and security logics in interplay, or never entirely encompassed by the other, nor in complete alignment, yet never truly separate. To do this, I propose a reconceptualization of the central problem—exceptionalism—that allows for risk to be understood as a form of exceptionalist politics. I demonstrate the validity of this approach through an otherwise "easy case" of securitization: the US response to the 2014–2016 Ebola outbreak in West Africa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author discusses the arrival of African diplomats in the U.S. in 1960. He mentions the impact of black diplomats from newly independent nations in Africa, the issue of their presence in a racially segregated Washington, D.C., and presents instances of discrimination against ambassadors and their staff.

The article discusses the U.S. government's foreign policy on Africa. Topics discussed include President Donald Trump's personal views and lack of interest in Africa, the continued funding of the U.S. for Africa's economic development, trade and political programs, and Trump's America First direction which includes cutting international aid and security spending.

Globalization is one of the most important socioeconomic processes of recent decades, but it has elicited a reactionary backlash in some countries, leading to calls for reform. President Trump's rise to power in the United States and his determination to rewrite his country's involvement in globalization have brought substantial changes to foreign policy, including the US–Africa relationship. His administration's policies appear undeveloped, but we can determine distinct trends and tendencies. This article examines the effects of these policies on Africa to argue that they go beyond a return to the benign neglect shown by many US presidents before the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, to include a malign governmental gaze, exemplifying a retreat from US global hegemony through selective delinking in aid, and manifesting economic and security interests in Africa in particularly detrimental ways. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article considers the opportunities that emerged during the 1950s for American interests in Africa through consideration of a unique story, that of Congresswoman Frances Bolton and her trip to Africa in 1955. Frances Payne Bolton (b. 1885, d. 1977) heiress to the Payne family Standard Oil fortune, and one of United States' longest serving Congresswomen, made a significant though largely unrecognized contribution to shaping America's cold war perspectives and policies on Africa. Following the United States' development with Congolese uranium of the atomic bomb in the early 1940s, Americans intensified their commercial and political interests in Africa. They did so in the context of rising African nationalism and continent-wide struggles for liberation from European colonial powers. American leaders then found themselves in a deeply ambiguous position vis-à-vis Africa and Africans, caught as they were between paying deference to European paternalist interests in the continent and largely unfulfilled aspirations to deal with the looming civil rights movement on the domestic front. The principal focus of the article is a consideration of Bolton's remarkable and unprecedented three month tour of the African continent in 1955. During a critical period in African states' struggles to gain independence, Bolton was deeply engaged in cultivating America's growing interest in economic and political opportunities in postcolonial Africa As chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, her 'Special Study Mission to Africa, South and East of the Sahara' included stops in twenty-four countries and, meetings with African political leaders as well as colonial officials. Upon her return over the next year or so, Bolton penned a report of mission for Congress, and made a fascinating film chronicle - Africa: Giant with a Future, 1955. The article seeks to highlight significant facets of Bolton's trip, and its influence on how Americans in and outside of government perceived Africa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Increasing attention paid to US casualties in far-flung places such as Tongo Tongo, Niger, and headlines claiming 'secret wars' have fueled discussion about American military's involvement in Africa. Though the continent has been a part of the American way of war since the beginnings of the US – consider the early combat actions of US Marines in Tripoli –, current African conflicts are challenging our understanding of war and approaches to winning it. This article examines the ways America seeks to achieve its ends in Africa with a particular focus upon the last 10 years of US counter-terrorism and stability operations in Niger and the Sahel Region. The author proposes unifying American, Allied, and partner efforts through a strategy of Active Containment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports that administration of U.S. President Donald Trump is keen to capture Africa's value to bolster U.S. economic growth and political influence. It mentions Better Utilization of Investments Leading to Development (BUILD) Act of 2018 allocated fund to create the new International Development Finance Corp. It also mentions racist sentiments embeds their local communities within global systems of economic and political power.

In this article, the author uses Afrocentricity in order to provide an African point of view in respect of the analysis of the United States (US) foreign policy towards Africa. Given the dominance of mainstream thinking about the US foreign policy that takes for granted US as a prominent and primary in defining the relations, this article employs historical sensibility in order to trace the US relationship with Ghana and Tanzania using Afrocentric lens. This discourse is often partially understood due to the lack of an Afrocentric perspective on the existing literature in this aspect of Strategic Studies. History is crucial in this regard because the past provides a sound basis for understanding the present and future. This helps challenge the thinking overly informed by mainstream theories in Strategic Studies. As it shall be seen below, such a paradigm remains critical in highlighting the peculiarity of the US relationship with Ghana and Tanzania and in providing a deeper understanding of underlying dynamics in US foreign policy towards Africa. To realise the purpose of this article, the author relies methodologically on interdisciplinary critical discourse and conversations in their widest forms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]