The consequences of the Donald Trump administration’s decision to decimate U.S. foreign assistance for Africa are not hard to find. Global health professionals have forecast soaring numbers of malaria, tuberculosis, and polio infections; more acute and fatal cases of malnutrition; more HIV-related deaths; and rising maternal and child mortality—and that is just in the global health space the United States long dominated. Programs to fight corruption, improve food security, prevent radicalization, expand access to power, and combat wildlife trafficking have also disappeared.
Yet African leaders are notably not sounding the alarm, at least not loudly. To the extent that they have publicly addressed the abrupt U.S. policy change, remarks have been understated rather than alarmist. Given the life and death issues at stake, downplaying the implications seems counterintuitive.
No political leader wishes to give the impression that their constituents’ well-being depends on the generosity of distant powers. In fact, the weaker the state, the harder leaders work to project an air of power and authority. It would be a vulnerability to suggest that citizens are in crisis because of a decision made in Washington that cannot be rectified by leadership at home. Particularly for leaders long frustrated by Afro-pessimism, little is to be gained by emphasizing the costs of the absence of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
The realities of foreign assistance can be insufferably patronizing for those on the receiving end
Long-standing ambivalence about the development sector also means that few prominent voices in the region wish to publicly mourn its loss, even if they privately acknowledge the significant role it has played in providing basic services. Much of the foreign assistance budget has been allocated to large, U.S.-based organizations to implement programs, a reality not lost on Africans frustrated with the slow pace of localization efforts [PDF]. Moreover, the off-putting power dynamics between development donors and recipients have long rankled African societies. Senior officials responsible to their citizens resent foreigners directing some of their decisions and priorities, and they chafe at endless reporting demands from officious Americans. Despite the efforts of many excellent foreign assistance professionals, the realities of foreign assistance can be insufferably patronizing for those on the receiving end.
Those two factors inform the popularity of the wake-up call response of many African leaders, from former Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta to Nigerian President Bola Tinubu to Zambian President Hakainde Hichilema. Characterizing the U.S. withdrawal from foreign assistance as a catalyst for a new era of African strength and self-reliance allows African politicians to emphasize their competence, dignity, and readiness to take on a challenge. The political appeal is undeniable and permits capitalizing on resentments accrued in earlier eras, when the United States used its foreign assistance as leverage to influence a recipient government’s decisions. The loss of U.S. influence and leverage is a problem for Washington but could be perceived as liberating from across the Atlantic.