Some Kenyans decry the dismantling of the US Agency for International Development because the agency has been providing aid in critical areas.  Others view this as an opportunity to refine Kenya’s and, more broadly, Africa’s engagement with the United States.  

The Path to the Dismantling of USAID

Clinton’s African Growth and Opportunity Act in 2000, and the 2004 Millennium Challenge Corporation launched by George W. Bush made receiving assistance from the US explicitly conditional on copying US-style human rights, democracy, and market capitalism, besides granting US private sector access to the economies of recipient countries. 

USAID has applied these conditionalities differently depending on the political party which is in power in the US.   

When the Republicans such as George W. Bush or Mr. Trump are in power, USAID gives priority to countries that aggressively promote market capitalism, create a suitable legal and institutional framework, and give US private sector preferential access to the economy.  Under Republicans, copying US-style human rights and democracy receives less emphasis in allocating aid.      

In contrast, when the Democrats such as the recently retired Mr. Biden are in power, USAID gives priority to countries that aggressively copy US-style human rights and democracy.  Under the Democrats, adopting a market economy, creating suitable institutions, and granting US companies access to the economy become secondary considerations in qualifying for assistance.

Party differences in applying the conditionalities reflects contours of the US political landscape.        

In US domestic politics, support for the Republican Party has historically come from business, entrepreneurs, large corporations and, consequently, mainly Americans of European ancestry who have long controlled wealth in the US. The Party offers limited support for the creation of a social safety net.  Lately, this image of the Republican Party has changed slightly due to the entry of Black and Hispanic Americans, as well as first-generation Americans of Asian and Middle Eastern origin.  But the traditional image of the Party holds, including its view of itself as the guardian of the cultural and moral foundation of the United States as a society.   

In contrast, the Democratic Party attracts labor rather than capital, and the less affluent rather than the wealthy.  It is the political home for most Black and Hispanic Americans, as well as anyone seeking to expand opportunity by changing the rules of social, economic, and political transactions.  Democratic Party has also become the political home for the self-styled ‘progressives’ who are waging a ‘culture war’ to redesign the cultural base of the United States by mainstreaming a range of historically marginal behavior such as homosexuality. 

Hence the battle in the US political arena pits those advocating a return to the ethic which drove the US to the top of the world, against those who are trying to redesign this very ethic.  The two camps clash over everything – the correct version of US history to include in school textbooks, the scope of social safety net, how to level the economic playing field, how much control to cede to technology

companies, and even the types of bathrooms in public spaces or what constitutes a nuclear family. It is an increasingly bitter civil war of words to redefine society. 

This is the context in which, within days of taking office, Mr. Trump suspended USAID operations, starting with the flagship activities in diversity, equality, and inclusivity.  This same order was issued to other Federal government agencies within the US for the stated goal of improving efficiency in government.  But the urgent and selective stopping of diversity, equality, and inclusivity programs at home and abroad, points to a broader goal: to return the US to its cultural or moral roots, regain vitality and make America great again, in Mr. Trump’s famous slogan.

Therefore, Africans should see ending the USAID as a spillover from this culture war over basics such as what constitutes a good society or the correct image of the US abroad.  USAID is only one of the many agencies that have been dismantled as part of this war. 

African Agency and the end of USAID

Of course, African policy makers will continue with the task of modernizing their countries without the USAID.  The US will probably curtail its support to some multilateral organizations that have long supported Africa’s modernization.  There are signs that other Western countries will also reduce support to Africa in part to save resources to fill in gaps left by a less active US.    

This new reality will bring into sharp focus the inherent risks of relying on a single bilateral or multilateral source for basic needs.   Long-term reliance on the goodwill of other countries for critical services is also risky because it can engender a false sense of security.  It can become a policy disincentive by making the search for local, long-term solutions less urgent.  This moral hazard lies at the heart of aid for modernization.  In this regard, African analysts are aware of the emerging school of thought in the US and Europe which holds that long-term aid to Africa has been detrimental to African search for self-reliance.

Of course, African policymakers will work harder to find diversified alternative sources of support besides striving for self-reliance. 

If Mr. Trump re-launches a smaller USAID or returns it to its bricks-and-mortar origins in exchange for US access to minerals or commodities, perhaps African countries will take the opportunity to negotiate new conditions.   With an eye on industrialization, African countries might demand some local equity participation as well as partial or complete processing of the minerals and commodities in Africa to raise Africa’s position in the value chain. 

Like some officials around Mr. Trump, some African policy makers have long objected to the cultural engineering of diversity, equity, and inclusivity projects viewing them as relics of colonialism with their disdain for African values.  This might create limited common ground between Mr. Trump and policy makers in some African countries.

Overall, the end of USAID could lead to a more transactional and transparent engagement between African countries and the US.  It could also be an opportunity to promote a more robust African self-interest or agency to match Mr. Trump’s America First posture.