Every US election draws global attention, but for Africans, this time around, there’s a familiar question: What does a new president in the White House mean for our continent?
This election is unusual. Instead of two familiar political faces, it’s between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. But for Africa, the choice isn’t really about who wins; it’s about the deeper problem of America’s long history of influence over African nations. Both candidates—Trump and Harris—represent different approaches to the same issue: how America tries to keep control over Africa’s economic and political future.
Here’s a look at what each candidate’s approach could mean for Africa and why African nations might want to rethink the entire relationship.
Trump’s “America First” Approach vs. Harris’s “Friendly” Diplomacy
Trump and Harris both represent forms of American influence in Africa, but they approach it in different ways.
Trump’s “America First” approach is very direct: he wants less interference abroad and promises to reduce the US’s involvement in other countries’ affairs. But there’s a catch. He also promotes policies that harm African economies, like suggesting high import taxes on African products entering the US. This means African exporters would struggle to reach American markets, trapping Africa in a one-sided relationship where they mainly supply raw materials but don’t benefit fairly.
Kamala Harris, on the other hand, takes a softer, diplomatic approach. She talks about “human rights” and “green energy investments” to sound supportive of African countries. But these investments come with strings attached, often forcing African nations to follow American priorities. For instance, Harris’s climate initiatives push African nations toward green policies that may sound good but sometimes clash with African countries’ own development needs. African leaders argue that these climate-friendly policies can limit their industrial growth, which is essential for their economies.
The Real Question: Who Does This Help? Neither Trump’s hard-line economic stance nor Harris’s “friendly” diplomacy really benefits Africa in the long run. Both approaches are ultimately about securing American interests rather than supporting true African independence.
Climate Change: A New Way to Control Africa?
Climate change is one of the biggest issues facing the world, and Africa—although responsible for only a tiny fraction of global emissions—faces some of its worst effects. Harris advocates for more climate cooperation, but her climate plans push African countries into agreements that prioritize Western goals over local needs.
This puts African countries in a tough spot. Many are rich in fossil fuels, yet the West expects them to limit their resource use, while America and other wealthy nations have historically profited without these limitations. Harris’s climate policies, therefore, feel to some African leaders like a form of control under the banner of environmentalism.
Trump, on the other hand, downplays climate change and openly favors fossil fuels. He’s likely to let African countries handle their climate policies without US interference. Yet his lack of environmental focus could harm global climate efforts overall. In both cases, African countries remain on the sidelines, unable to fully act on their own terms.
Africa as the “Chessboard” in the US-China Rivalry
Both Trump and Harris see Africa as a battleground in the rivalry between the US and China. Trump’s anti-China stance puts African nations in a tight spot, forcing them to choose between two powerful nations. Harris, although more diplomatic, also aims to reduce China’s influence in Africa. But African leaders see value in China’s investment in their infrastructure, resources, and technology—areas where the US has been less involved.
China has invested billions across Africa, funding projects like roads, railways, and telecommunications. Many African nations appreciate this partnership, as it provides an alternative to the US-led order that has often dictated Africa’s trade and economic policies. For Africa, China’s involvement offers a choice beyond American influence. If African nations build stronger ties within the African Union and work with other countries like China, Russia, India, and Brazil, they could move towards a more self-reliant future.
“Aid” and “Human Rights” as Tools for Control
Both Trump and Harris use foreign aid and human rights policies as a way to influence Africa. Trump’s approach is straightforward: he sees foreign aid as a burden and reduces it when it doesn’t directly benefit the US. This leaves African nations scrambling to fill financial gaps when US aid is cut.
Harris would likely increase foreign aid, but with conditions attached. She’s likely to push for “human rights” standards aligned with American values, which means African countries must often adjust their policies to fit the US’s expectations to receive aid. This approach forces African leaders into a role of compliance, prioritizing American demands over their own people’s needs.
For Africa to determine its future, it needs to redefine these relationships with Western countries. Pan-African organizations can play a major role in setting Africa’s agenda, freeing the continent from dependency on foreign aid with strings attached.
Moving Towards a Self-Reliant Africa
The bottom line? Neither Trump’s nor Harris’s policies offer a clear path to true African autonomy. Trump’s “America First” mindset sees Africa as less of a priority, while Harris’s diplomatic approach still works to keep Africa under US influence. Both options lead to the same place: African nations with limited control over their economic and political futures.
The real solution lies within Africa itself. By strengthening cooperation through the African Union and accelerating projects like the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), African nations can work together to reduce dependency on the US and other Western markets. AfCFTA, in particular, has the potential to create a robust internal market, allowing Africa to support itself rather than rely on Western economies.
By investing in infrastructure, agriculture, and industrial projects driven by African leaders, Africa can build resilience and self-sufficiency. Partnering with other Global South nations and building a unified foreign policy can help African nations push back against the influence of Western powers.
The Choice for Africa
For Africa, the US election is more than a choice between two American candidates; it’s about deciding between dependency and self-determination. African countries must seize this moment to pursue alliances that allow for genuine growth and resist the control tactics of foreign powers. American presidents may come and go, but the key to Africa’s future lies within the continent’s own hands.
