Rethinking US engagement in Africa beyond aid reductions
The recent decision by Secretary of State Marco Rubio to significantly reduce the US Agency for International Development (USAID) programs in Africa has reignited debates about Washington’s long-term role on the continent. The 83 percent cut in USAID funding is poised to have profound consequences for African nations, particularly in healthcare, economic development, and food security. This move has been interpreted by many as a shift in US foreign policy priorities, with some critics arguing that it could cede influence to China, which has been expanding its footprint in Africa through infrastructure projects and economic partnerships. However, rather than framing the issue solely through the lens of great power competition, the US must seize this opportunity to reassess and recalibrate its approach to Africa in a way that fosters long-term development, self-sufficiency, and local leadership.
Sub-Saharan Africa has long been the largest regional recipient of American foreign assistance, with an average of $8 billion in aid annually over the past decade. This funding has played a pivotal role in supporting programs that address healthcare, agriculture, economic growth, security, education, and democracy promotion. Countries such as Nigeria, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya, and South Africa have been among the major recipients of this aid.
Roughly 70 percent of US aid to Africa has been allocated to health programs, particularly those targeting HIV/AIDS, malaria, and maternal health. The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), Power Africa, and Feed the Future are just a few examples of initiatives that have contributed to improving lives across the continent. However, despite these efforts, many African nations remain heavily dependent on foreign aid, and questions persist regarding the efficiency and effectiveness of USAID’s programs.
One of the major criticisms of USAID and similar foreign aid programs is that a substantial portion of the funds are absorbed by administrative costs, consultants, and........
© Blitz
