Questioning Shifts in US Foreign Policy: Africa and the “President of Peace”
Recent pronouncements regarding a recalibration of US foreign policy deserve careful scrutiny. While the new National Security Strategy (NSS) signals a potential shift, especially concerning Africa, the details remain vague and raise critically important concerns. Together, claims of a successful “peacemaking” legacy by the current governance require a reality check.
The NSSS mention of revisiting the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) – a crucial trade program for African nations that lapsed under the previous administration – is a positive sign. However, the strategy’s limited attention to the African continent, spanning just three paragraphs, leaves much unaddressed. Notably absent is any discussion of governance. A stable investment climate, the strategy implies it desires, is fundamentally reliant on strong governance, the rule of law, and robust accountability measures to combat corruption. The focus on identifying “select partners” feels disconnected from these essential prerequisites.
Furthermore,despite acknowledging the growing threat of violent extremism,particularly in regions like the Sahel,the strategy offers no concrete plans for addressing this critical issue. ultimately, this section falls short of the promised “dramatic pivot” and provides little insight into a comprehensive US strategy for a continent poised to represent a quarter of the global population.
This pattern of rhetoric exceeding reality extends to claims of peacemaking success. The assertion that the current president has “settled” eight conflicts is demonstrably overstated. while the administration’s efforts to pursue peace deserve acknowledgement, attributing sole credit for positive developments is questionable.
A closer examination reveals a more nuanced picture. Several cited “triumphs” - such as those between Kosovo and Serbia, and Egypt and Ethiopia – involved pre-existing tensions rather than active conflicts. In other cases, like Armenia and Azerbaijan, the conflict had largely subsided before the current administration took office. Even those instances where intervention appeared to contribute to ceasefires, like India and Pakistan, remain fragile and prone to renewed conflict. Moreover, ongoing conflicts in the Democratic Republic of Congo/Rwanda and between Israel and Hamas demonstrate that peace remains elusive despite reported efforts.
The administration’s inability to resolve the conflict in Ukraine, despite initial promises, and its limited response to the devastating situation in Sudan further undermine the narrative of a successful peacemaking record. Moreover, the continued use of intimidation and threats of force against other nations contradicts the image of a benevolent peacemaker.
While the aspiration to be remembered as a champion of peace is laudable, substantial work – and a more honest assessment of achievements - remains before such a title can be legitimately claimed. A truly effective foreign policy requires not just ambition,but also a commitment to foundational principles like good governance,a realistic understanding of complex conflicts,and a willingness to address challenges with sustained and meaningful action.
