**Washington D.C.** – In a striking juxtaposition, American diplomats stationed in Africa have been instructed to vigorously highlight the United States' considerable foreign aid contributions to the continent, even as a significant policy shift under the Trump administration signals a move away from traditional aid towards a more transactional, trade-focused engagement. The directive, disseminated via an internal email from Nick Checker, the newly appointed head of the US State Department's Bureau of African Affairs, has ignited controversy, with some recipients decrying the approach as dismissive of Africa's strategic importance.
Checker, whose previous tenure at the Central Intelligence Agency may inform his pragmatic outlook, urged his staff to "unabashedly and aggressively" remind African governments of American largesse. The email, sent in January, explicitly stated, "It’s not gauche to remind these countries of the American people’s generosity in containing HIV/Aids or alleviating famine." This instruction comes at a time when the broader US foreign policy towards Africa is being recalibrated, as outlined in the Trump administration's national security strategy unveiled last November. This strategy designates Africa as a "peripheral" rather than a "core" theatre for American interests, advocating for a pivot from development assistance to fostering robust trade and investment partnerships.
The underlying rationale for this communication, according to the leaked correspondence, is to "counter the false narrative that the United States isn’t in many cases the largest donor and to ensure that we can more effectively leverage that assistance to advance our interests." This suggests a strategic imperative to ensure that American aid is perceived as a tangible asset, capable of securing reciprocal benefits for the US. The administration’s overarching vision for engagement with the continent prioritizes relationships with nations demonstrably committed to opening their markets to American goods and services. Consequently, the email posits that Africa's significance to US interests is "limited, indirect and largely negative (risk management)," a viewpoint that has been met with considerable criticism.
This recalibration of US-Africa policy is not merely rhetorical. The new national security strategy explicitly favors alliances with "capable, reliable partners committed to opening their markets to US goods and services." The email from Checker identifies specific sectors, such as "critical mineral development and the energy sector," as prime opportunities for increased US investment. Furthermore, it suggests that facilitating "negotiating settlements to ongoing conflicts (eg, DRC-Rwanda, Sudan)" presents another avenue for constructive engagement and the advancement of American objectives.
However, the directive has not been universally welcomed. The email's characterisation of Africa's stakes for US interests and the emphasis on reminding African nations of their reliance on US aid have been labelled as "racist" by some within the Bureau of African Affairs. Critics argue that this approach risks alienating potential partners and undermines the long-term goals of fostering genuine collaboration. The policy shift, with its implied potential reduction in foreign aid, signals a fundamental reorientation of US-Africa relations, moving towards a more economically driven and strategically aligned partnership. The implications of this evolving dynamic for the future flow of development assistance and the broader scope of US engagement with the African continent remain a subject of intense scrutiny and debate.