Dissecting the detriment of the USA’s egoism to Africa by Megan Kamau

President Biden was once quoted saying “American leadership is what holds the world together.” The messianic statement references the undeniable agency that the United States of America wields. This power is utilised to perpetuate the nation’s ideals of democracy and freedom to the rest of the world, which has seen both improvements and deteriorations in the nations impacted. Acknowledging that with great power comes great responsibility, the nation is subject to criticism as its failures – which are numerous - are of significant effect particularly in the case of Africa, as the continent is only just recovering from colonialism.  

The faults in diplomatic relations with this continent are indicative of the egoism that is at the heart of the American Project, contrary to its charitable front. Africa is particularly at the receiving end of this; as will be elucidated on, the US acts in a manner implying that the continent is merely a “humanitarian crisis” with barely any diplomatic priority as thoroughly expressed by multiple diplomatic experts including political educator Arikana Chihombori-Quao and political economist Zainab Usman. This sentiment has severely set back Africa, as the continent endures being collateral damage in US’s quest to maintain global domination. In an effort to promote accountability, the discrepancies must be dissected, as will be done in this essay. 

The most self-evident example of the USA’s blatant disregard for African progression involved a prominent Libyan leader: If the USA is the rope that “holds the world together”, Muammar Quaddafi was to be the man to put a knife to it. In the 2000s as he took on leadership of the African Union, he promoted the vision of "a single African military force, a single currency (backed by gold) and a single passport for Africans to move freely around the continent". However, in Libya Qaddafi fell from a populist leader to a dictator who ferociously crushed any opposition as he believed the people were misguided in wanting a Libya without him.  

Without excusing his egregious actions, it is necessary to consider the reaction of the US: On top of the actions already being nobly undertaken by NATO to protect the citizens from the calamity, the US insisted on bringing its own centre of command with the aim to particularly affect Qaddafi’s closer forces. Notably, the revolutionary forces were already quite potent as conveyed by Phyllis Bennis, a Middle East geo-political expert in the US. Moreover, she noted that she does not believe “her government deploys military force across the world for purely humanitarian reasons”. This sentiment was seconded by experts from all spheres, implying that the nation had motives particular to Qaddafi.  

Considering the USA’s involvement regime changes like that in Chile 1973, one can deduce that the nation’s primary inclinations are focused on self-preservation. Considering that the potential African currency would be backed by gold, making it more legitimate than the dollar and thus significantly devaluing the American currency, there is an undeniable likelihood that interests were more so to ensure the continuation of American hegemony at the cost of the African development. Furthermore, the public sentiment in Libya today is that American interest in the political and humanitarian state of Libya ceased with the death of Qaddafi, evidenced by the unending conflict that rages on even today. Therefore, one can conclude that the USA sought to preserve its dominance, which in turn meant keeping a status quo of poverty and political impotence on the international stage in Africa, all under the guise of a humanitarian project. 

Secondly, the settlement of African Americans in Liberia is yet another illustration the US’s egoism: The land known as Liberia today was well occupied, with some communities being the Gola and Kissi. They had their systems of governance and traditions. However, the American Colonisation Society did not see this a priority as they purposed to repatriate former slaves and free Africans primarily because they saw the feasibility of free slaves integrating with their society as non-existent. As opposed to working to disestablish the despicable structures or perhaps finding out where exactly the former slaves originated from and facilitating reintegration with their communities, these slaves were shipped off to the already occupied lands of West Africa. While some indigenous communities were afforded the basic decency of a trade for their land, others were forced, catalysing conflict. 

While some Americans were authentic in their desire to see the liberation of slaves, there was an underlying homogenic view of Africa: Abraham Lincon, without malicious intent, once referred to Liberia as the slaves’ “own native land.” This altruism is further marred by the lack of acknowledgement of the impact of slavery and western influence. The fact of the matter was that these African Americans could not easily integrate back into Africa as they had socialised differently and become disconnected with the customs of their original communities. This divergence was evidenced by the enmity during the years of disparity and apartheid enforced by the settling Liberians. 

Undoubtedly, there was a consistent tendency to prioritise dealing with American concerns, which was the moral burden to slave owners and beneficiaries of slavery in this case, while neglecting its effects on others. Moreover, the egoism that is characteristic of American systems of authority was mirrored in Liberia: The African American ruling class established a capitalistic framework, with a small group of families holding the majority wealth and power. Therefore, the settlement in Liberia exemplifies the detrimental flaw of self-regard that is inherent to the US’s formal and informal relations policy. 

While the first two cases were ostensibly altruistic, the US’s attempts to destabilize and undermine the South African government are undisguised, all in the name of maintaining dominance over Russia and China in Africa: On the 26^th of October 2022, the US embassy alerted South Africans of a looming terrorist attack through their website. The news circulated around the country and reached government officials through WhatsApp and other social media platforms. President Ramaphosa expressed that considering the gravity of the matter at hand, it is baffling that the US did not see it fit to firstly inform the South African authorities in order to let them effectively prepare. Consequently, the country was plunged into anxiety as they questioned the legitimacy of their governmental security forces seeing as they were all oblivious. It is important to note that there was, in fact, no such terrorist attack nor anything indicating there was going to be one. The affair is likely purposed to belittle the South African government and convey the might of the US as repercussions for South Africa developing deeper relations with Russia and China as opposed to the US. 

In early 2023, the US sent Afghan refugees to South Africa with an accompanied patronizing instruction to let them in. As a sympathetic global citizen, one should be inclined to hear the plea of these Afghans, particularly considering that they had fled from the Taliban for their safety. However, details such as the fact that they had been through multiple other countries, including Zambia and Zimbabwe, as well as the dubious circumstances of their arrival with lawyer-written documentation –unheard of for refugees seeking asylum- may induce some apprehension. The government rightly felt insulted at the condescending tone employed by the US and concerned for the safety of their nation. Furthermore, considering the capabilities of the US, one must question why they did not offer themselves up to house the Afghans in their unfortunate predicament and instead sent them through multiple other nations, to South Africa. Ultimately, the intention to insinuate dissatisfaction with burgeoning relations between South Africa and other global powers is palpable. 

Lastly, the US accused South Africa of arming Russia in May 2023. An apology from the diplomat, issued on Twitter, addressed “any misimpressions” he made. These three events demonstrate a severe lack of respect for Ramaphosa’s administration and overt attempts to frustrate them, which can be tied back to increasing relations with Russia and China. Although, American, neocolonial propaganda has utterly romanticized itself and demonized these two nations, it is vital to take the pragmatic stance of acknowledging that all these nations have committed a generous number of atrocities. South Africa is a nation developing itself and cannot afford to restrict its advancements in order to remain completely loyal to the US. The expectation to do so connotes a robust self-interest in the US. Therefore, one can conclude that they were not only egotistical, but malicious in the interactions with South Africa in the cases above. 

To conclude, the United States of America is accorded with accolades for its involvement in peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts in Africa. However, as elucidated on, egoistic motives are deplorably at the heart of its engagements, which needs to be addressed and justly accounted for as it has significantly impeded on the advancement of African nations. Especially considering its potency in the global stage, foundations of diplomatic respect must be established, and atonement must be embarked on in order to “hold the world together”. As Arikana Chihombori-Quao put it, right now “They have their knees on our necks...Africa cannot breathe”. If the actions of the US do not change, Africa will asphyxiate.