Bola A. Akinterinwa
One major concern with which Professor Tunde Adeniran, former Minister of Education of Nigeria and former Ambassador of Nigeria to Germany, is currently preoccupied is what future for Africa in light of the many unending unrests in the continent. The Afrophobia in South Africa is a new saga in intra-African relations that has to be addressed. The resultant political unrest is generating a diplomatic row between Nigeria and South Africa. Similarly, Ghana stopped the planned visit by the South African President, Cyril Ramaphosa, to Ghana.
Besides, from the estimation of the United Nations, the city of El-Obeid in Sudan has the potential to witness a general massacre, because the on-going war in Sudan has prompted a siege-like conditions for about 18 months now. The Ebola out-break in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has been made complex because of last week’s strike of health workers whose entitlements were not paid or delayed. In fact, Africa’s relationship with the self-proclaimed leader of the world, Donald Trump of the United States, is increasingly becoming hardened with a growing number of African countries rejecting hegemonic foreign policy instructions from President Trump. U.S. grant of aid that is always unnecessarily made conditional for African leaders, not for them to consider and possibly accept, are now instantly jettisoned by African leaders in protection of their national sovereignty.
And true enough, national sovereignty is under permanent threat from developed countries. The Alliance of Sahel States (ASS: Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger) kicked out France from their countries. In the eyes of Burkina Faso, France is behind the terrorism in the ASS countries. This is because of the shift of alliance from the traditional European partners to Russia and China. Thus, France cannot but be happy about the downing of a Russian Africa Corps Mi-24 helicopter in Mali by the Tuareg insurrectionists last week. But for how long will this ASS-France Cold War continue?
Competing Sovereignties
Contemporary international relations is witnessing an unprecedented competition between Africa’s sovereignty, on the one hand, and the sovereignty of the United States of America under President Donald Trump, on the other. President Trump has introduced the foreign policy of ‘America First’ and ‘Make America Great Again’ (MAGA). These policies are far away from being able to address Africa’s main problems of systemic poverty in which more than 70% of the total population lives below poverty line.
For instance, the conditionality often attached to the agreements presented to African leaders for consideration and expected approval is, at best, arrogantly undermining the rule of sovereign equality. It consciously promotes Africa’s dependency on the U.S. and prioritizes plundering of African mineral resources. As reported by Kat Lay the Global Health Correspondent of The Guardian (London) on 27 February 2026 President Emmerson Mnangagwa of Zimbabwe ‘directed that Zimbabwe must discontinue any negotiation with the USA on the clearly lop-sided MoU that blatantly compromises and undermines the sovereignty and independence of Zimbabwe as a country.’
The first point of emphasis is the aspect of lop-sidedness of the MoU. What makes it lop-sided? Another issue is the undermining of the sovereignty of Zimbabwe. How do we explain the compromising and undermining of the Zimbabwean sovereignty? The U.S. has reportedly offered a health funding of $350m (£258m) but subject to the acceptance of some conditions that are generally applicable to all countries that accept the MoU: first, signatories must accept U.S. regulatory approval of new drugs and technologies before the new drugs can be rolled out. Zimbabwe was not only being asked to provide pathogen samples but also ‘to share its biological resources and data over an extended period, with no corresponding guarantee of access to any medical innovations – such as vaccines, diagnostics or treatments – that might result from that shared data.’
Put differently by the spokesperson of Zimbabwe, ‘ín essence, our nation would provide the raw materials for scientific discovery without any assurance that the end products would be accessible to our people should a future health crisis emerge.’ Zimbabwe’s reasoning is quite logical and commendable, especially that the country is looking at the implications for the agreements done with the World Health Organisation whose systems allow for fairness in the response to future pandemic. And most interestingly, perhaps, Zimbabwe rejected the U.S. offer because ‘development aid should empower nations, not create dependencies or serve as a vehicle for strategic extraction… When financial assistance is contingent upon concessions that touch upon national security, data sovereignty, or access to strategic resources, it fundamentally alters the nature of the relationship from one of partnership to one of unequal exchange.’
The thinking of Ghana is not in any different. As noted by Arnold Kavaar Auo, the Executive Director of Ghana’s Data Protection Commission, ‘we had concerns around the scope and breadth of data that was being required…It was us generating data and passing it on to the U.S. authorities, and there were no real reciprocal measures when it comes to the protection of Ghanaian data and Ghanaian sovereignty… And so from our perspective, once the data left the Ghanaian borders, we had no control over what becomes of it.’
Many questions cannot but be raised at this juncture: why was it impossible for African leaders to understand the direct motivations of the U.S. when the MoU negotiations began? Could it be that the countries that had signed the MoU are more knowledgeable than the countries that have refused the MoU? The Secretary of State, Rubio reportedly told a Congressional Committee that 32 countries in Latin America and 20 in Africa had already accepted the American First Health MoU by mid-May. ‘Not only are we treating the acute situations in the ground of people that are sick, we are helping them build the capacity and the capability to do this for themselves,’ the Congressional Committee was further told.
What did the 20 African countries consider before accepting to sign any MoU with the U.S.? According to a State House spokesperson, ‘the Trump administration has made it clear, U.S. foreign assistance is not charity – rather it is strategic capital to be wisely invested to advance U.S. interests – and we expect all our allies and recipient nations to take seriously American strategic and commercial priorities.’ Have the signatories to the MoU with the U.S. be said to have taken seriously American strategic and commercial priorities? In taking the U.S. seriously, to what extent have the national interests of the signatories been objectively and adequately protected?
And perhaps more inquisitively, to what extent have the African leaders that signed the MoU understood the meaning of ‘America First’ and ‘Make America Great Again’ policies?
The policies underscore the protection of national sovereignty, self-reliance, and economic nationalism. More important, they are aimed at protecting the homeland, promoting prosperity, sustaining peace through renewed strength, rebuilding the military, and enhancing U.S. influence in the world
It is the mania of implementation of these policies, and particularly the conditionality to which the acceptance of the various Memoranda of Understanding on it is subject, that is largely defining Africa’s response to the policies of America First and MAGA. One clear rationale for ordaining the U.S. Constitution is to ‘promote the common defense.’ This foreign policy objective was sustained until the end of World War II after which U.S. foreign policy objectives increasingly became ambiguous. U.S. foreign policy was challenged by confrontational or competitive alliances and economic dependency.
The American Cornerstone Institute explained the spirit of the U.S. Constitution until World War II thus: quoting the Farewell Address of President George Washington, ‘the nation which indulges toward another a habitual hatred or habitual fondness is in some degree a slave,’ because that nation cannot truly be independent. From the perspective of President John Quincy Adams, the U.S. ‘goes not abroad in search of monsters to ‘destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.’
And perhaps more interestingly, this foreign policy stand appears to have been strengthened by the consideration that the United States is not only surrounded by the Pacific Ocean to the West and by the Atlantic Ocean to the East, and therefore also, in the thinking of Abraham Lincoln in his Lyceum Address, all the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest, with Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.’ Americans largely draw their strength and determination from the foregoing beliefs. In light of these considerations, Americans opted to adopt a foreign policy of altruism in the conduct and management of global affairs, and playing the role of global policeman.
However, the beliefs did not appear to have anticipated technological developments in the defence sector. Inter-continental ballistic missiles, nuclear drones that can enable attacks on the U.S. without necessarily having to come closer to the U.S. before attacking it, constitute new challenges that probably give the impression that America may be under threat or not invincible. And therefore, there is the need to Make America Great Again.
Implications of MAGA for Africa’s Future
On March 19, 2026, Nick Checker, Senior Bureau Official at the U.S. Mission to the African Union, said the United States is ‘resetting its relationship with Africa based on mutually beneficial partnerships rather than aid, dependency, and spreading divisive ideology.’ From our discussions above, it cannot be rightly said that the relationship has been mutually beneficial and that it is free from dependency or spreading divisive ideology. And if the partnership has been beneficial, it cannot be holistic in scope as many countries have jettisoned the U.S. agenda.
As noted further by Mr. Checker, U.S. partnership with Africa is guided by ‘Trump Administration’s 2025 National Security Strategy, which in clearest terms in the post-Cold War era lays out our singular global prioritization and focus on protecting and advancing our “core national interests.” It is a radical, but necessary corrective to the reckless pursuit of liberal hegemony over the last 30 years. This is an approach of strategic autonomy that is ‘modest’ in aims, clear in interests, disciplined about limits.’
What is particularly noteworthy here is the quoted explanation of Secretary Rubio: ‘to be successful in diplomacy as a result means meeting countries on their own terms, and respecting differences in culture, history, and governance in order to advance shared priorities. This reality means we must engage governments as they are, and not as Washington wishes them to be.’ This is a beautiful diplomatic talk as it does not in any way reflect the situational reality on the ground. The truth in some cases, like Zambia, is that the partnership is more of a one-country show rather than an agreement mutually consented to.
Zambia’s Foreign Minister, Mulambo Haimbe, reportedly said that ‘it is an American effort to link health funding to U.S. economic interests by connecting the deal to a separate agreement giving Washington access to critical minerals.’ In the eyes of the U.S., there is nothing wrong in linking the two deals. The two deals should be taken together as a package because ‘the U.S. felt that there is need for there to be a preferential treatment in the U.S. of critical minerals and the framework was to reflect that.’
Admittedly, there are two different issues, healthcare funding and quest for critical raw materials. If there is sovereign political will to have both issues discussed as one package, there should not be any qualms. The apparent problematic in the negotiations is the U.S. quest to impose acceptance of the two as one. And true enough, even if the two issues are to be considered as one, the moment any point of submission becomes controversial, there is no way that controversial issue will not be struck with nullity.
Let us consider the interests of the U.S. and Africa against the background of Africa’s future. The U.S. is much interested in invasive data sharing and access to critical mineral resources. And true enough again, the critical mineral resources have limitations. If the foreign powers, like the U.S., are all allowed to exploit and exhaust the whole minerals, what will be left for African countries to develop when they too would have developed the capacity and capability to exploit them for self-development purposes?
Thus, all African countries that do mortgage their mineral resources for monetary pittance in the immediate run are only enslaving their own people in the long run. Their leaders are also myopic. Their myopia cannot but also raise several questions. First, when should African leaders speak with one voice? One major rationale for the establishment or restructuring the Organisation of African Unity into the African Union is to be able to unite Africa’s foreign policies and speak with one voice. Why is Africa now not able to speak with one voice? Is the U.S. foreign policy of ‘America first’ not problematic enough to warrant a collective response even if the U.S. prefers bilateralism to multilateralism? What prevents the adoption of a collective policy attitude and instructing all Member States to negotiate with the U.S. on the basis of what is collectively agreed to?
Secondly, African leaders often talk about the need for African problems to be solved by African people. Is the mismanagement of Africa’s natural resources not an African problem? Is the acceptance of unwanted criminals in Europe and America by some African leaders in exchange for money not a collective problem for Africa, and therefore warranting a collective response? Why are African leaders pretending to be united when they cannot even agree on minor questions of African sovereignty?
Thirdly, can it be rightly argued that Ghana and Zimbabwe are wrong for refusing to turn over their biological data and patients’ health records to the U.S.? are they wrong for not accepting Donald Trump’s quest to tie U.S funding of healthcare to a separate negotiation that demands preferential access to Africa’s critical minerals. Why is the African Union silent and cannot speak with one voice? Professor Tunde Adeniran’s much concern that Africans really need to revisit their educational systems to enable relevant critical thinking is an issue that must be more seriously taken by academics.
All Africans should commend Ghana, Zimbabwe, and Zambia for showing objective leadership by example, for having the long-term interest of their people always in mind, and for not allowing the exchange of critical mineral resources for a porridge and pepper soup to be part of their development calculations. The truth of the matter is that their rejection of U.S offer has the potential to strengthen national self-reliance and encouragement of more dependence on self-generating tax revenue efforts.
In the same vein, all Africans should condemn all the other African leaders that have started the re-enslavement of their people again by trading their limited strategic mineral resources with foreign powers. They surely owe Professor Tunde Adeniran a serious apology because he has continuously been drawing public attention to the need for Africa that have eyes to see. He noted in his Africa Betrayed: The Challenges of Underdevelopment in Sub-Saharan Africa, published in 2025 by Safari Books, that ‘we are already many decades away from the decade of independence. We are ascending the third ladder of the 21st century and yet Africa continues to be haunted by the shadow of colonialism’ (vide page 15 Is it the shadow of colonialism that is the problem now or the leaders of Africa that are going to the colonial market place to trade? While Professor Adeniran has observed that the intellectual elites have frequently sought to assert some influence on African societies, he also observed, ‘painfully, however, the Ivory Tower elites’ contribution to society itself has been rather inadequate.’
Even though the intellectual elites have their own limitations (internal power struggle, petty rivalries, and position-seeking) which unnecessarily diminish their capacity to champion national development, Professor Adeniran has argued that the intellectual elites have actually contributed to the betrayal of Africa. And who can argue contrarily to this observation? To what extent are the intellectual elites holding their presidents accountable to their people in the emerging trade of re-enslavement of Africa? U.S. policies of ‘America First,’ and ‘Making America Great Again’ are nothing more than a new mechanism for re-enslavement by new transactional means.
And without any whiff of doubt, U.S. policy of ‘America First’ is also nothing more than a re-definition and replacement of France’s imposed preferential treatment on its former colonies to ensure giving France a privileged concession in its relations with Africa, and particularly in France’s international relationships. Put differently, if there was any international contract to be bided for or awarded, France was to be given priority and preferential treatment. This is precisely what Americans are also trying to do now. This is what ‘America First’ policy as a framework is all about in ‘Making America Great Again.’ Most unfortunately, however, this has very deleterious implications for both the U.S. and opponents of U.S. ‘America First’ policy. As great and powerful as the U.S. may be, U.S. foreign policy calculations are, at best, very myopic intellectually. The Donald Trump’s calculations always ignore that other countries also have alternatives. The mere fact that the U.S. accounts for about 40% of healthcare funding cannot deny the existence of the other 60% opportunities. Seeking to impose ‘America First’ only drives away opponents to seek greener alternatives elsewhere. Africa wants multilateralism, U.S wants to impose bilateral transactional diplomacy. The U.S, must know that no amount of U.S. funding and intimidation can neutralize or close other roads to healthcare funding. Nigeria’s Health Minister, Muhammad Ali Pate, has said it all: ‘we cannot build healthier populations purely on the generosity of other nations.’ Vulnerability of the population may be accentuated but undermining the sovereignty of African States cannot Make America Great Again or solve Africa’s problems.
