By Emmanuel Ihim, Esq
Africa, a continent teeming with potential and cultural diversity, has for decades grappled with political instability, corruption, and the erosion of democratic values. While many factors contribute to this complex issue, the role of foreign powers cannot be overlooked. At the forefront of this discourse stands the United States, a global superpower whose foreign policy in Africa has, at times, inadvertently exacerbated the very challenges it seeks to address.
In a nuanced and multifaceted examination of US foreign policy in Africa, the cycle of impunity emerges as a recurring theme. From supporting authoritarian regimes to prioritizing strategic interests over human rights, a disturbing pattern has emerged. One of the most distressing aspects of US foreign policy in Africa is its selective engagement when it comes to addressing human rights abuses and atrocities. While the United States champions human rights on the global stage, it has been accused of maintaining a blind eye to atrocities and electoral corruption in various African countries. This glaring inconsistency sends a message that accountability for human rights violations is negotiable. Below, we'll delve into the evidence supporting this assertion
The US refusal to intervene in the 1994 Rwanda's “genocide” serves as a stark example of international inaction. More recent situations like the alleged 'genocide' against Nigeria's Christians highlight continued neglect and oversight have highlighted this worsening situation.
The U.S. government's reluctance to designate the situation in Rwanda as "genocide," a term that would have legally compelled international intervention under the Genocide Convention and other global actors to take necessary action against the Rwandan genocide, has been widely criticized and is often considered a glaring oversight in international diplomacy and human rights protection, illustrating the dire effects of inertia in the face of impending mass atrocities.
There were enough warnings and insights about the potential for genocide in Rwanda, but the international players chose inaction. The U.S., for example, has been urged by its policymakers, the International Religious Freedom Commission, Senators, and Congress to recognize Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern for severe religious freedom violations, accounting for 90% of global deaths by terror. Unfortunately, these calls have been ignored. This disregard is a critical misjudgment, underscoring the grave risks of overlooking clear signs of looming atrocities. It also exposes a broader tendency to prioritize security interests over human rights in dealings with countries like Ethiopia, Nigeria, and others.
In relation to supporting authoritarian regimes, the U.S. has had a long-standing military aid relationship with Egypt, driven by strategic interests such as regional stability, the Suez Canal's security, and upholding peace with Israel. Historically, the U.S. has backed authoritarian governments in Africa to further its interests, as evidenced by its support for Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo) during the Cold War, despite his known human rights violations.
Recently, concerns have risen over evidence suggesting that U.S. military aid to Egypt, and similar nations experiencing government crackdowns on dissent, has been misused to stifle political opposition. A Human Rights Watch report has detailed the U.S.-Egypt relationship and how this aid has been deployed to suppress dissent, urging both the U.S. and European governments to cease overlooking Egyptian government abuses. These include unaccountability for protester killings by security forces, mass arrests, military trials of civilians, extensive death sentences, and forced evictions in the Sinai Peninsula.
The Human Rights Watch findings, along with contributions from personal accounts, media reports, U.S. Congressional testimonies, and the provision of military equipment such as tanks and fighter jets, make a strong case that U.S. military aid has been exploited to quell opposition since the 2013 coup in Egypt. While the U.S. government has expressed occasional concerns, the multifaceted relationship continues to stir debate, posing more significant questions about the interplay between foreign aid and human rights values in U.S.-Egypt relations and regional geopolitics.
Support for Corrupt Leaders: A Detriment to Progress
Despite allegations of corruption and autocratic rule, the United States' support for certain African leaders has also contributed to the erosion of democratic values in the region. While the U.S. justifies such partnerships as necessary for stability and counterterrorism efforts, these alliances often undermine the very foundations of democracy.
A prominent example is the relationship between the U.S. and some leaders who have manipulated elections to prolong their rule. By turning a blind eye to these manipulations, the United States tacitly endorses electoral fraud and undermines the hard-fought struggles for democratic governance in these nations, exemplified by the recent 2023 Nigeria Election, which has been described as a fraudulent electoral charade and reported by International observers as shoddy and shame and failing in standard. The evidence of this can be seen in the growing number of African countries experiencing democratic backsliding, as in the current Republic of Niger.
The Absence of Accountability and Transparency: A Vicious Cycle
One of the most detrimental aspects of the U.S. foreign policy in Africa is the lack of mechanisms to hold African leaders and American policymakers accountable. By engaging with corrupt leaders without pushing for meaningful reforms, the United States inadvertently perpetuates a culture of opacity and a disregard for transparency.
This dynamic creates a vicious cycle. Corrupt leaders often siphon off funds intended for development and public welfare, perpetuating poverty and instability. In turn, this instability can lead to conflict and terrorism, which the U.S. responds to with military interventions rather than addressing the root causes. This approach sidesteps the necessity of advocating for good governance, effective institutions, and the rule of law – the very pillars of democracy.
A Call for a New Approach: Accountability and Genuine Partnerships
The U.S., with other international actors' failure to act in the face of terror either in Nigeria or genocide in Rwanda, even though they had the knowledge and sufficient warning or tolerating sham elections in Africa without demanding accountability, is often seen as a significant blunder in international diplomacy and human rights protection, underscoring the grave consequences of turning a blind eye to clear signs of looming atrocities. The narrative also hints at a recurring theme of prioritizing security interests over human rights, as seen in the U.S.'s collaborations with governments known for repressive tactics, such as Ethiopia.
The evidence of the U.S. foreign policy's role in democratic backsliding across Africa is clear. To break this cycle, a new approach is imperative. Accountability must extend to both African leaders and foreign powers. The United States should condition its support on the adherence to democratic principles and human rights standards. Furthermore, fostering genuine partnerships means actively engaging with civil society, grassroots movements, and young leaders striving for a democratic future. The evidence of successful democratic transitions in countries like Ghana and Senegal showcases that such partnerships can yield positive results.
The United States self-centered foreign policy in Africa, characterized by selective engagement, support for corrupt leaders, and a lack of accountability, has inadvertently fueled the democratic backsliding that plagues the continent. To reverse this trend, a recalibration of priorities is necessary – one that places African citizens' well-being and advancing democratic values at the forefront.
Emmanuel Ihim, Esq; Lawyer, activist, Distinguished Human Right Advocate-
and President, Diaspora Alliance, USA
Comments