Tag: USA

Trump’s Tariffs: As China Retaliates, The World Has Refused To Bend The Knee

Posted on By Alan Collins Mpewo

Trump’s first weeks in office for his administration’s second term have not been short of interesting news. To his critics he has proved right, and to the U.S allies, he has shocked them. In fact jokes have been filling media platforms, of the tariffs that were slapped on almost the entire world. His administration has recently imposed tariffs on countries’ products entering the U.S market, that it all seems like the U.S has been having it that bad to reckon. To make America great again – either you bend towards our interests or you will be purged. China might be the greatest victim of the levied tariffs. Trump in his first term as U.S president imposed tariffs of over 20% on select Chinese products into the U.S, tariffs that were maintained by the Biden administration. From January to April 2025, the US trade-weighted average tariff rose from 2% to an estimated 24%, the highest level in over a century. Trump escalated an ongoing trade war with China, raising baseline tariffs on Chinese imports to an effective 145% after April 9, 2025.

Explaining that “the US’s imposition of abnormally high tariffs on China seriously violates international trade rules, basic economic laws and common sense,” China reciprocated announcing it was raising tariffs on all United States goods to 125 percent.

The global south countries have been no exception, with a few mentions such as Zambia, Lesotho, Zimbabwe, Mauritius, South Africa, Kenya, and many more. The intention according to the White House media outlets have been to level ground where USA was facing unfair trading terms. The state of affairs led shortly to panic especially in the stocks markets and as noted by numerous economists, JP Morgan Chase warned of possible likelihood of steep recession. But it was all resolute of the Trump administration that be damned, dear world, we are taking back what is ‘rightly’ ours. Long term allies affected. Alliances broken. Panic caused. All in a bid to not only cause alarm and show strategic strength, but to push the countries on whom tariffs were imposed into negotiations, bending the knee towards the U.S, and put the rest on notice of what might happen in future should they not adhere to the U.S terms as they come.

Many years and efforts of diplomacy put to a drain. Diplomacy is expensive. World histories are littered with case examples. But one event can change the course. The European Union had learnt so for decades, and now with a new blow, it still learns of the inadequacies presented from its leniency to U.S supremacy. The results? Now the E.U is realigning its interests. Strange times. China’s reaction does not come off as shocking. Neither does the imposition of stiff tariffs on its products. China equally issued fitting tariffs on US products entering the China market and a limit to access of some rare earth materials, with U.S and Ukraine’s rare earth deal gaining disruptions on possibilities of success. The Canadian Premier also responded in equal measure as the U.S did. And by day, the list of those imposing similar or worse tariffs keeps growing.

In an official response, China stated (among others) in a communique, “by taking such action, the United States defies the fundamental laws of economics and market principles, disregards the balanced outcomes achieved through multilateral trade negotiations,… and weaponizes tariffs to exert maximum pressure for selfish interests – a typical act of unilateralism, protectionism and economic bullying. Under the guise of “reciprocity” and “fairness,” the US is playing a zero-sum game to pursue in essence “America First” and “American exceptionalism.” It attempts to exploit tariffs to subvert the existing international economic and trade order, put U.S. interests above the common good of the international community, and advance U.S. hegemonic ambitions at the cost of the legitimate interests of all countries.” Spot on, because as the communique rightly noted, the World Trade Organisation approach to international trading with a rules based trade system was introduced to ensure balanced economic benefits for all world players. Fair trading and not economic bullying.

But the world has refused to bend the knee. For the global south, with incidents like the suspension of many African countries from AGOA, Uganda inclusive, has opened doors to new diplomacy and alliances. It goes without surprise as to why most countries in the global south are turning their choice of partnership to the East. To them, the US is no longer to be regarded as the decision making commander on all world affairs, or the compass that determines how affairs should run in each country. The window keeps getting opened to new allies, differently this time round, with allies that have some fabric of respect to autonomy and independence in determining internal politics and affairs – a lacking factor with U.S alliance. With the growing tensions, the U.S days off reaping off heaven are reducing. This was made strategically with its withdraw from global commitments under the World Health Organization, International Criminal Court, and other United Nations parastatals.

The defiance has grown, dissent increased, and realities are clearer. To re-echo Kissinger’s quote, “To be an enemy of the U.S is dangerous. But to be a friend of the U.S is fatal.” A country that has run its foreign relations in such ways is not one to keep close. The allies have until this year opened their eyes wider. For Africa, it has been a point of sheer exploitation. From rumored regime change covert missions, to looting of minerals, and a growing lack of boundaries on the extent of meddling by Western powers, the ascension of the East – specifically China – as a parallel competing economy has been a blessing to the global south with alternative implementation of foreign policy and respect of autonomy. A growing admiration of opposition from an ally showcasing the possibilities that lie in concerted neglect of unfair global dominance. What is certain is that the global south will survive and whereas the economic disruptions will cause discomfort, more power lies ahead in turning away from full alliance with the U.S. All thankfully to Trump’s administration.

Alan Collins Mpewo, Senior Research Fellow, Development Watch Centre.

China On Proposed Gaza Takeover By US: War Should Not Have The Last Word

Posted on By Alan Collins Mpewo

The Gaza question seemed at first to be an easier one to answer on the side of Israel, but that could not have been the case. It seemed justified at the time, but as of today, events have continuously taken different turns and twists. Much as solutions from declaring the Gaza strip a no man’s land, to executing a two state treaty, Israel maintains that Gaza should not belong to Palestine, and that Palestine is not recognized as a country. And now, the USA has joined the choir of Israel’s song. Same song, “Gaza is Israel’s territory.” As of July, 2024, Palestine has been recognized as an independent state by over 75% of the world countries. Such is the status of Palestine in over 146 countries globally. The USA that has recently joined the band has been a stumbling bloc in the exercise of its veto powers as a permanent UN Security Council. But that has not gone unnoticed since there have been instances when other UN member states have questioned the high handed approach that is sometimes used by the USA in doing so.

China has maintained that war should not have the last word. In this, it has consistently welcomed solutions that do not entail exchange of arms because of the adverse effects already observed. Besides the growing concerns that China wants to outdo USA’s global dominance, it has come off as a shock to many persons that it was welcoming to the USA cease fire agreement proposal between Israel and Hamas. As of the end of January, 2025, the USA was on the forefront of this conversation and the Trump administration spotlighted to have more intentions than expected however. This unfolded on 05th February, 2025 when Trump after meeting the Israel Premier unveiled the plan for Gaza. In his words, “The U.S. will take over the Gaza Strip, and we will do a job with it, too.” This development came up as shocking to the world because later statements showed that the USA would be using real estate companies to complete the works, but the question remained on where the Gaza residents would end up.

A quick look of what the response was, is rather shocking. To evict them and have them assigned to neighbouring countries. In a migratory language, that would be termed as forced displacement. This does not rule out the fact that it is foreseeable that more USA troops would be introduced to the area. This would be foretelling after the Afghanistan campaign that did not go well. War would be inevitable. Hamas are not going without a fight. This is expected. China is opposed to this. As proposed, China will have to be part of the engagements and the rest of the world nations as proposed by China.

China’s focus on the Gaza situation is to rule out an isolationist solution where other important stakeholders are ruled out. One to do with the USA playing as the arbiter and yet its interests have been publicly come to be known. It has even taken strange responses like the USA sanctioning officials from the ICC for issuing arrest warrants on Benjamin Netanyahu. But as China notes, even then, dozens of countries stood firm on the side of ICC despite the threats. China has with unison of many other countries worldwide maintained that Gaza is integral to Palestine and should be left independent to decide its future.

The Arab League met on 21st February, 2025 to have a discussion on the future of Gaza, and as China, rejected the displacement plan that is being proposed by USA. They too maintain that Palestine deserves autonomy and has seen much bloodshed and destruction already. Interesting to note is that there has been a back and forth by other global residents on who had an opportunity to weigh in on the risks and mitigations of both. Clearly, the odds have not been on the US side of proposal. Compared  with the Egypt drafted proposal to rebuild Gaza that was endorsed by the Arab leaders and the US proposal, the European Union major powers agreed towards the Arab leaders’ proposal. The simple reason that countries like Britain, Germany, France, and Italy have given is that the Arab proposal of rebuilding Gaza, compared to US’s, is that it does not seek to illegally evict and displace the residents of Gaza. It has much of Gaza residents’ interests at the centre. As the body to their agreement to the Arab proposal, they used the words, “it is realistic.” Such unfortunate times, require realistic responses.

To them, Trump’s proposal is directly undermining over 7 decades of works of the Arab League in supporting the Palestinian independence efforts and rather, would glorify the USA as yet again, the saviour in the story. That is typical power greed and overlap. The Gaza question today remains unresolved because the USA had maintained its subjectivity towards Israel. It is understandable to what it would lose or gain in terms of trade and security cooperation but that would not overlook the fact that with its support, the war has been extended overtime. And now, that plan would be a masterstroke of the USA re-entry into the middle-east. That is the ultimate plan.

It would be a strategic move to keep active monitoring of the Arab trade window in disguise of peacekeeping. Similar USA involvement in the past did not ever end well. And so won’t this. Such is the ground of China that there should be a limit to diplomatic rifts. A ceasefire is a warrant to that, and China is not backing down. A Gaza takeover should not be an option, except a takeover by the Palestinian people whose rightful home is Gaza.

Alan Collins Mpewo is a Senior Research Fellow, Development Watch Centre.

Policy Volte-Face In Washington as The U.S Validates China’s Position on the Ukraine Conflict

Posted on By Musiime George

The principles of mutual respect, peaceful coexistence, common development and political settlement of conflicts have always been a hallmark feature of Chinese diplomacy. For China, this position meant more than just rhetoric; extending  into policy implementation with the principles built into all of China’s partnerships. China resolutely chose to uphold these principles when it declared the “friendship with no limits” with Russia in 2022 which some western commentators argue is behind China’s stance on the conflict in Ukraine. China and Russia however, maintain that this friendship was not intended as  a direct challenge to the current global order but those that governed for always using it for their own geopolitical gains. Nevertheless, some commentators always  paint this friendship as an Anti-West alliance. Coming out of the Biden Administration which only  purposed to replenished Ukraine’s capacity to fight on not withstanding of the gravity of the crisis, China advocated for a negotiated end to the conflict from the start. This is why a policy volte-face on Ukraine in the US  is such a significant development in the global effort to restore peace in Eastern Europe.

The NATO alliance; a rigid anti-Russia stance and the brightest of all red lines. Russia has maintained, its interests in this conflict were purely self-defense unlike the West describing it as aggression or invasion. Albeit the different points of view, this essay is not dedicated to delving in the technicalities of this nomenclature. However, it is worth mentioning here that the push of NATO towards Russia’s doorstep has been highlighted as a strategic threat both from within Russian and the west alike. The expansion has been criticized in the West,  among others by,  Biden CIA director Bill Burns who referred to it as “…needlessly provocative at worst during the Clinton administration in 1998. He also went ahead to describe NATO Expansion in a 2005 letter to Secretary of state Condoleezza Rice as “the brightest of red lines.” Moreover, French president Francois Mitterrand, had earlier in the 1990s proposed dismantling the alliance after it had served its purpose following the end of the cold war. While different scholars have faulted this sustained expansion of the Alliance as a key factor in this conflict, the Validation of China’s position on the conflict could imply fresh hope for the region.

During a period when the world is dealing with a diversity of security concern, China is proposing The Global initiative is built on the principal pillar of security of all nations regardless. Therefore, with Trump’s reversal of Biden era policy on Ukraine, the world can expect to see progress in efforts to find a solution to this conflict. Indeed, were are at that point where a world weary of the prolonged conflict can expect to see some progress in as far as bringing the conflict and its associated negative impact on the world to an end. Additionally, president Trump has been moving first in this direction having already had a high level meeting involving secretary of state Rubio and Russian PM Sergei Lavrov in Riyadh, coinciding with restoration of diplomatic relations between the two nations. On the other hand,  parallel meetings with the Ukrainian have happened, putting together the conditions for a peace deal. The holding of parallel meetings also signifies a commitment to reaching a deal as the absence of both Ukraine and the EU in Riyadh might be interpreted as a move seeking to avoid stalemates characteristic of having NATO members-some of whom might still harbor the rigid anti Russia sentiments. Critics of this approach, have thus been,  those outspoken about the wanting to see the conflict going until Ukraine attains Victory, something Trump clearly does not see as a viable outcome, at least not in the short or medium term.

More so, the presidents view is not one shared by everyone of uncle Sam’s partners as expressed by frustration of some white house staff. Amid these frustration, Ukraine and some EU presidents have been faulted for attempts to denigrate President Trump’s peace efforts. However, his resolve to find a solution to this conflict at any cost has been demonstrated by his implied proposal that saving the lives of innocent civilians might even be so important to justify Ukraine ceding some territory. Additionally, Trumps earlier expressed position on the implications of  the “NATO burden” on the United States economy could be another factor informing his policy reversal. This with the fact that The US has been Ukraine’s biggest backer in the war also signal how room little President Zelensky might have to wiggle out of the deal especially that the US is considering scaling back its European deployment which would directly affect NATO deployment as well.

Obviously, one cannot deny the fact that ‘war fatigue’ started setting in as early as the second half of 2024 with Poland and Czechia among the first professed EU supporters of Ukraine to want out. Despite promises to support the war effort for as long as it took, the withdrawal of significant US backing would most like dent and eventually dwindle European interest in the war even further- making continued fighting unsustainable. Moreover, a poll by the Council on Foreign Relations in Feb 2024, indicated most Europeans anticipating the conflict ending in a compromise. In addition, the same poll also put at 10% the chance that Ukraine might emerge triumphant. Consequently, this dynamic will have a direct bearing on the outcome of the new US led peace efforts. Conversely, for those that might be against the concessions by the US regarding its military presence in Europe, NATO and consequently the war in Ukraine, this might be a start of a possible reorientation of Europe’s security strategies. However, this development is also likely to relax tensions on the continent and Russia’s urgency to develop security capabilities against the threat from NATO.

When president Xi Jinping first proposed the Global Security Initiative in April 2022, he envisioned global security in the sense of a balanced security landscape, one where the security of one does not threaten that of another. This is what makes US validation of China’s initial position on the Ukraine conflict, a huge prospect for peace in the region. Therefore, a peace deal in Ukraine, should it go through would be a right step in the direction a stable Europe, and here is why. In what seemed like giving a nod to the propositions of President Mitterrand and Bill Burns from decades ago, Trumps defense secretary Pete Hegseth told NATO allies that it was unrealistic for Ukraine to join the alliance. Albeit not being a direct support for the GIS, this position gives props to the cardinal principle of the GIS that advises against promoting one’s security by threatening another. Hence halting NATO expansion keeps the threat to Russia at a safe distance and, just this is a positive move towards not just US-Russia relations but also global peace.

Georgemusiime@dwcug.org

The writer is a senior research fellow at the Development Watch Center.

The New Meaning of ‘Munich’ : After J.D. Vance’s bizarre speech, a word synonymous with appeasement may now signal the voluntary surrender of global hegemony

Posted on By Michael Hirsh

For more than eight decades, the word “Munich” has meant one thing in international relations: a catastrophic policy of appeasement. Now, “Munich” may soon take on a fresh—and possibly even more fraught—meaning: the voluntary surrender of global hegemony.

In a series of remarks leading up to the just-ended Munich Security Conference, senior Trump administration officials—including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio—signaled that the United States is substantially retreating from the greatest alliance in history, NATO, and that China and Russia could have what they’ve long sought: a “multipolar world,” in Rubio’s words. This was capped by a blustery, insulting speech in Munich by U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance—remarks that some European officials interpreted as “the opening salvo in a trans-Atlantic divorce proceeding,” according to foreign-policy analyst Richard Fontaine.

Rubio, accompanied by President Donald Trump’s national security advisor, Michael Waltz, then flew to Saudi Arabia to meet with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov—all without European or Ukrainian participation. The object: to pursue a peace settlement in the Russia-Ukraine war and, as Rubio said Tuesday, to “unlock the door” to “incredible opportunities that exist to partner with the Russians geopolitically.”

Trump even said that he wanted to invite Russian President Vladimir Putin, who faces an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court over allegations of war crimes, back into what would then once again be the G-8 group of nations.

Astonishingly, Trump later appeared to echo Russian talking points by blaming Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky—who complained about being left out of the Russia talks in Saudi Arabia—for starting the war, which was begun by Putin in 2022.

“You should have never started it. You could have made a deal,” Trump told Zelensky in remarks to reporters at his Mar-a-Lago resort. And all this is on top of the new tariff war that Trump just launched against the United States’ closest friends in the European Union.

Little of this comes as a complete surprise. Trump’s “Make America Great Again” movement has been signaling such a shift for months, if not years. And the U.S.-orchestrated global order—which, for most of the past 80 years since World War II, U.S. officials of both political parties fully supported—was starting to fall apart even before Trump began suggesting that he was no longer interested in being leader of the free world.

But by brazenly treating some of Washington’s key allies as adversaries—and its autocratic adversaries as partners—Trump may be administering the death blow to a once-stable world system in which Washington served as overseer of a powerful alliance of democracies. As another Munich attendee, Georgetown University scholar Charles Kupchan, put it to me: “The atmosphere in Munich was that of a funeral.”

How far could the unwinding of the U.S.-led global system go? It’s not yet clear. Moving at breakneck speed, Trump appears to be doing far more damage than expected only a month into office.

Also, one of the messages that Europe took from Vance’s appearance in Munich on Valentine’s Day was not just the decidedly unloving content of his speech—in which the vice president openly embraced far-right European politics while ostensibly defending free speech—but the implicit staying power of that message given Vance’s youth.

Europe can no longer pretend, in other words, that U.S. politics has been briefly hijacked by a 78-year-old huckster (as many of them see Trump) who will soon depart the scene. Vance is just 40 years old and perceived as the heir to the neo-isolationist America First movement (though Trump himself is not quite ready to grant him that title).

And the veep and his MAGA supporters have as little love as Trump does for what they see as an all-too-leftist Europe. The fact that Vance could visit Dachau one day and meet the next day with Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany party (which has been criticized for its connections with openly neo-Nazi groups) —all without betraying any sense of historical irony—suggests that the postwar trans-Atlantic consensus may really be over. It’s noteworthy that Vance’s speech to the same Munich conference a year ago, when he was still a U.S. senator, was titled: “Europe Must Stand on Its Own Two Feet on Defense.”

Indeed, Vance’s bizarre speech on Feb. 14—which had nothing to do with security and everything to do with culture and politics—should probably be seen mainly as an appeal to his MAGA home audience and perhaps the effective start to his 2028 presidential campaign.

“There are folks inside the administration who are simply thrilled to be bringing tears to the eyes of the Europeans,” said one Republican international relations expert familiar with the Trump officials’ thinking, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “There is a lingering anger from Trump’s first term toward the bien-pensant crowd in Brussels who openly criticized Trump’s domestic politics and came out against the Dobbs decision.” (That was the 2022 Supreme Court decision overturning the constitutional right to abortion.)

Moreover, says this expert, there is an emerging dominance of “restrainers” or realists in the new administration who want to scale down the United States’ global presence. The Defense Department is already developing plans to remove all remaining U.S. troops in Syria, and it will possibly shift some of the troops deployed in Europe to the U.S. southern border, the expert said.

It is striking that even Rubio, once considered a traditional Republican hawk—that is, a stalwart believer in U.S. global hegemony—appears to be surrendering to a new global status quo. In a Jan. 30 interview with conservative pundit Megyn Kelly, Rubio effectively conceded to Russia and China what both nations had long been seeking: that we now live in a multipolar world and that Washington’s unipolar power had merely been “an anomaly.”

“It was a product of the end of the Cold War, but eventually you were going to reach back to a point where you had a multipolar world, multigreat powers in different parts of the planet,” Rubio said.

The problem, however, is that Trump often behaves in ways that suggest that he thinks the United States is still the global hegemon.

“He thinks America’s bargaining position is incredibly strong, that we can get massively better deals at better cost,” said William Wohlforth, an international relations scholar at Dartmouth College. “So that’s not really consistent with this idea of multipolarity,” he added.

It’s fashionable to write that Trump just makes policies up as he goes along, such as his seemingly immoral—and monumentally ahistorical—idea of ridding Gaza of Palestinians and turning it into the “Riviera” of the Middle East. But in fact, Trump has been remarkably consistent in his view that Washington has no business being caretaker to the world—going back to the late 1980s, when as a real-estate magnate, he took out a full-page New York Times ad that said, “The world is laughing at American politicians as we protect ships we don’t own, carrying oil we don’t need, destined for allies who won’t help.”

In some ways, Trump is a reversion to the pre-World War II norm of Republican geopolitics. In recent weeks, much has been made of the 47th president’s 19th-century approach to power—stemming from his bid for greater hemispheric primacy over Greenland and the Panama Canal, as well as his embrace of the tariff policies similar to those of former President William McKinley.

But he also represents a return to the early-to-mid 20th century Taft Republicanism, named for Sen. Robert Taft. Once known as “Mr. Republican,” Taft fought the New Deal and backed the America First Committee, the pre-World War II version of Trump’s movement. Former President Dwight Eisenhower silenced that isolationist wing of the GOP 70 years ago as the Cold War got underway. Now it seems to be back, redefined as “national conservatism.”

Former President Joe Biden worked hard to restore the U.S. role as the supposed overseer of the global order and portray Trump, and his disruptive first term, as an outlier. But the main message of the 2024 election was that it was Biden, not Trump, who was the interlude from history. The advent of Trump II—and the way that he’s upended Washington and the world order in just a month—shows that history is returning with a vengeance.

The question is, how much of that history will return? Without U.S. leadership, will we revert to the old-style balance-of-power geopolitics that ruled for centuries, including for part of the Cold War, in which weaker powers join together to counterbalance the strong?

Much now depends on the European nations in NATO, many of which are pledging a new independence in the wake of Munich—perhaps even a balancing against what some now see as a rogue U.S. power.

“But they don’t know yet what to do about it,” said Jeremy Shapiro, a research director for the European Council on Foreign Relations. He added: “The extent of their dependence in security, economic, and energy terms on the U.S. means that they are currently almost helpless in the face of a predatory American administration. Even if they now have a broader consensus about the problem, they have little consensus on the solution.”

That became clear on Monday, when French President Emmanuel Macron, in his latest bid to drive Europe toward “strategic autonomy,” called an emergency meeting in Brussels. On the agenda was developing a strategy to protest Washington’s decision to leave European leaders out of the negotiations with Russia. As Politico described it, “Leaders came up with no new joint ideas, squabbled over sending troops to Ukraine, and once again mouthed platitudes on aiding Ukraine and boosting defense spending.”

Many defense experts believe that, even with an all-out effort, it would take more than a decade for European countries to develop the intelligence and logistical capabilities, as well as cross-border defense industries, to come close to replacing the United States.

Moreover, to adapt a saying by the great Scottish economist Adam Smith, there is “a great deal of ruin” in an international system. It takes a long time, in other words, to destroy 80 years of institution building, much less a post-World War II globalized economy still held together by an iron law: Countries must take part in it to prosper. Meanwhile, Russia is badly weakened and drained by its bloody three-year debacle in Ukraine, and China is not close to being on par with either Washington’s power or its alliance system.

Thus, while what we are witnessing is clearly something more than a simple reset of relations—especially with European nations still seething over the rebukes they got from Vance and Hegseth last week—it is also probably something less than a return to a state of nature. Even in a multipolar world, the United States is still the dominant power.

“I don’t see it going all the way back to pure spheres of influence or a balance of power system, in which barriers to territorial conquest are lowered,” said Wohlforth, the Dartmouth scholar. “The U.S. has alliances with countries that possess 70 percent of world GDP. This means that any revisionist power still has to contemplate an unbelievably high cost if it wants to transform the status quo through territorial change.”

Putin has found that out with the loss of hundreds of thousands of troops and a great deal of status since he invaded Ukraine on Feb. 22, 2022. “He’s probably sacrificed 2 percent of his GDP for the next 10 years,” Wohlforth said. “He’s sacrificed modernization and diversity of his export portfolio, and he’s sacrificed his autonomy, since he’s dependent on help from China, Iran, and North Korea. I doubt that other powers [such as China] will want to emulate that experience.”

Some Russia experts believe that if Trump handles relations right, he can actually restabilize Europe and induce Putin to stop where he is with partial control of eastern Ukraine, without further threatening any Central European countries.

“The world is a much more dangerous place when the world’s two leading nuclear powers don’t have a substantive dialogue ongoing, and that’s been true for the last three years,” said Thomas Graham, a Russia expert at the Council on Foreign Relations who once worked for U.S. President George W. Bush.

“Restarting the dialogue is extremely important. One reason Russia has welcomed this engagement by the Trump administration is that it validates Russia as a great power. And in a strange way, Russia’s own sense of itself is dependent on recognition from the United States. That is a point of leverage for the United States if you know how to play it.”

Graham believes that Putin only wants to exert direct control over the “Slavic core” of the old Russian empire, including Belarus, parts of Ukraine, and perhaps parts of Kazakhstan. “He’s not interested in the Baltics,” Graham said. “He may want continuing influence in the Caucasus and Central Asia, but he doesn’t want outright control.”

Kupchan, the Georgetown scholar and a specialist in trans-Atlantic relations, agreed in part. “In a sense, what Trump is doing needs to be done. I think a bilateral dialogue between Russia and the United States is overdue,” said Kupchan, who served on President Barack Obama’s National Security Council.

“I just wish they knew what they were doing. They keep giving away the store before the negotiations even begin,” Kupchan added. “And the insults are so unnecessary. To have the vice president of the United States show up and insult his hosts and tell them they need to start dealing with a party that has its roots in National Socialism is outrageous.”

Trump’s approach to China and Asia—and whether the United States will seek to retreat from a possible defense of Taiwan, as Trump has sometimes hinted—remains to be seen.

In the face of Washington’s retreat, the world is clearly returning, to some degree, to the balance of power geopolitics that has reigned since ancient times. What we don’t know yet is what happens when this balance of power is reinforced by nuclear deterrence—and, perhaps, enforced by cyberdeterrence and other new tech threats.

How stable might it be? The next four years will tell.

 

 

Trump’s Trade War Against China: It Has Nothing In It for Americans– Trump Does Not Care

Posted on By Joshua Kingdom

On Tuesday last week, a Trump 10% tariff increase on goods imported from China came in effect triggering an almost immediate response by the Chinese government that imposed several duties on United States produced commodities thereby reviving the US-China trade war.

President Trump’s insistence on doing things this way is puzzling because all signs show that the policy will not only not benefit his country but hurt it. In fact, it has started already. Following the announcements for example, stocks for tech giants Apple, Tesla, and Nvidia tanked. The projections for what is to come do not look good either; the Peterson Institute for International Economics estimates that low-income earning Americans (a constituency that overwhelmingly voted Republican last year) will see their household income reduce by 3.5% something that Goldman Sachs attributes to the expected increase in the price of consumer goods. Mark you, US-based producers are likely to take advantage of the overall market situation by equally hiking their products.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren speaks at a rally to protest the closing of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the work-from-home order issued by CFPB Director Russell Vought outside its headquarters on February 10, 2025.  Photo Credit: Getty Images

We do not have to wait on the future though as this is not the first time that a Trump-led administration takes issue with Chinese products. If at all, these levies are one of his signature marks from the first that he appeared on the political scene. And sure enough, the outcome of his 2018 onslaught is no better than what I laid out above. The financial burden born thereof was met on consumers according to the Quarterly Journal of Economics, farmers that formerly benefited from the then $24billion trade with China went bankrupt, and at least 300, 000 jobs were lost. Overall, the economy saw a 0.3% GDP lag. As for the trade deficit with China, it stalled at $345 billion which is more or less what it was when the tariffs were first promised with the otherwise would have been difference going to other countries e.g. Japan, Britain, and South Korea rather than benefiting manufacturers in the USA.

Moreover, things can only get worse because whereas China has exhibited nothing but good faith up to now (including pointing out that trade wars have no winners), it is far better placed to take on the new United States administration more than ever if push comes to shove. For one thing, Beijing is no longer as reliant on Washington as it was back in 2016. Thanks to a host of agreements that it entered with countries across continents in the intervening years, China has become a main trading partner of at least 120 countries. No wonder, the Communist Party of China (CPC) was quick to retaliate this time, sending a message that nothing will come easy.

Examining the nature of the countermeasures that President Xi’s government adopted is worth the time too. In restricting the exportation of elements that modern technologies heavily rely on for instance, China made it more difficult for American based innovators to compete effectively moving forward. Consider Tungsten which is such a rare mineral and yet key to aerospace ventures, molybdenum that is embedded in jet engines, ruthenium which is essential in the making of chips resistors etc. Australian National University has confirmed this much.

It does not help things that the US President has taken to the offensive in regards to relations with countries that have been traditionally understood as his country’s allies risking self-destruction. We are already seeing this with Canada on whose goods he almost imposed a 25% tariff– the imposition could very well accrue should the ongoing negotiations fall apart. Donald Trump has confirmed that he is considering adopting similar stances towards the European Union as well. In contrast, China has previously demonstrated its willingness to stand in the place of Global leader if a vacuum surfaces. Once Washington halted World Health Organization funding in 2020 thus, the CPC stepped forward and took on more responsibility as the other big boy in the room.

Why then (one would rightly ask) is President Trump so adamant? Well, it goes back to the fact that all he cares about is plundering to his base. Having successfully swayed them into believing a gloom and doom narrative, he must now take on the protector mantle. It comes from an old playbook in which a politician projects genuine grievances of his people onto an “other”. In China’s case, it started as early as the days of initial candidate Trump. Ever since, without facts, he has continued to associate Beijing with distorted depictions including saying that the nation was guilty of “raping” America and of “the greatest theft in the history of the world”.

What is more about this alternative reality, is that facts do not matter. Instead, the end justifies the means and Trump has taken it to heart.

The writer is a research fellow at the Development Watch Centre 

President Trump’s Aid Freeze is his gift to Africa: A lesson on Self-Reliance?

Posted on By Shemei Ndawula

I have recently learned  that when a United States of America agency funding an organisation tells it to stop working, it means exactly that. If the funding goes towards electricity or travel expenses, you are expected to turn off the lights and ground all the vehicles. I have a close friend in Kampala working at a John Hopkins University funded project who has been at home for close to a week now because of an executive order President Donald Trump signed last week.

Last week, on January 24th the US Department of State put a stop to almost all foreign aid while the new government initiates a review of these projects. This means most of the staff who where working on these projects are (at least for the duration of the review) effectively unemployed. The complication with this is that the majority of US funded projects in Africa are in the sectors of Public Health. Halting so many of these projects means that there will be real impact to the ordinary Ugandans and the shockwaves of these decisions will be felt throughout the health sector of the country.

It is estimated that the PEPFAR project alone impacts the lives of over 24 million people in the global south. This is not to mention the thousands of projects directly under USAID funding. This is perhaps the most brutal wake up call African governments could receive from the newly elected American president. This wake up call puts African nationals at a very important precipice of their development where they have to choose whether to keep relying on handouts and “Charity” from the west or pick themselves up by the bootstraps and develop their own capacity.

Indeed this decision has already been made for them because while the Makerere Infectious Diseases Initiative (IDI) in Kampala is drafting “stay at home” letters for its employees, the Chinese funded and built African Union Center for Disease Control(CDC) in Addis Ababa is operating smoothly. While many have in the past few years criticized African governments for taking Chinese loans calling these loans “exploitative”, history has proven that this is a sound economical structure for development because both parties emerge as partners in development with a win-win situation instead of recipients of charity. Partnership in development preserves mutual respect and accountability while charity keeps us in a perpetual circle of foreign influence because benevolence can always be retracted.

Interestingly the United States Mission in Uganda has for the past year used the tagline “real help not loans”. This is probably a subtle diplomatic jibe at the Chinese foreign policy structure that funnels a significant part of their development aid to Africans through infrastructure loans. However most of the loans provided by the People’s Republic of China are consensual loans which for he most part pay for themselves. For example road tolls are still being collected at the Entebbe expressway to cover the Chinese loan acquired to build the road after which all the money collected shall go towards national development.

In hindsight the real help(charity) as envisioned by the United States Mission in Uganda turns out to be an unsustainable development model because for the past 60 years it’s proven to be a panacea of the symptoms of underdevelopment without addressing the actual causes. This may explain why this year the mission changed it’s social media tagline to “Real Results, Real Impact” which is also a little ironic because one of the first impacts of the new administration was freezing funding of vital public healthcare and social welfare initiatives in the country.

But let us be honest, the real impact of this executive decision is the disruption of the flourishing NGO sector within Africa. African governments can; if they really want to, cover the deficit caused by lack of American funding for these vital healthcare projects. China has been showing them how to do this for decades now. The frontline victims of this freeze are the NGO workers like my friend who won’t be able to meet rent at the end of the month, or who’s children won’t be able to report to school at the start of the academic year because of salary delays for these three months and a possibility that their contracts won’t be renewed. The real victims are the government officers who won’t be going to the fancy capacity building workshops at the end of the month to sign for lucrative allowances.

This is definitely disruptive, especially to the fragile Ugandan middle class but definitely not disastrous and this is perhaps the best opportunity for African governments to realise that we are now living in a multipolar world and we need to get African solutions for African problems. Uganda was earlier on suspended from the AGOA initiative and the economy did not crumble. Key government figures have been sanctioned by the United States for decades but this has never truly affected government efficiency. President Trump has on a not so subtle way given African governments an opportunity to introspect on their national development and bilateral alliances and if we can use this period productively, Africa may emerge even stronger and more resilient from this aid freeze and the inevitable aid cuts even after the  review period.

Shemei Ndawula is a Senior Research Fellow at Development Watch Centre.

 

TRUMP AND THE BRICS QUESTION: WHAT CURRENCY?

Posted on By Alan Collins Mpewo

By Alan Collins Mpewo,

Strange global times. Syria’s 50 years long guard has been pushed out of standing by the gunbarrel. The US that had long sought solutions to the pushover has decided to distance itself through its President, Trump, who like in his first term of presidency, ruled out wanton war on foreign soil. But Trump has been busy on tabs of excellency to realize his slogan, “make America great again.” As a reader, you are familiar with this phrase, but that is besides what has transpired in H.E Donald Trump’s first days. The BRICS has been in optics that even the outgoing US Executive has been careful at quick response through retaliation. The currency question – ‘Which global currency?’ You can deduce the extension to the question in your context. Which global currency for international trade? Business? Consortium exchanges? Which currency?

The dollar, without ” doubt has been on a run (still is) of global dominance that in many spaces, it is the cynical god of international finance. That an export farmer in Maputo, Mozambique to without foreseeable obstacles, has to heed to the global financial god’s declaration. To yield to compliance. So should the fabrics trader at Saint Catherine in Egypt, or a cosmetics shipper in São Paulo in Brazil. Other global currencies notwithstanding have kept their places on the financial radar but that is it, such are their places. But it is more than just the finances as generically understood. Since the Cold War, retaliation and offense has continued to evolve. Sanctions have gradually become a resounding declaration of ‘power’. To use the term ‘authority’ would be modest. Global power. Who rules what. Who does what. Who says what. Who suffers what. All these bundled are showcased in the consequences. Economies have collapsed because of sanctions. The consequences cannot be over emphasized.

Russia, and until the recent decades China, have become constant parallels to the Western power axis. The side looks given by mandated regulators like the UN have rather amplified the growing resentment from the BRICS. Until December, 2023, BRICS still maintained its founding membership since its formation in 2009, but as of February, 2024, more than 4 countries have joined the alliance, and about a dozen others had been invited to join as of October, 2024. It says a lot about the growing tensions over the scrambled power points globally and expected response to cross border bullying. The currency is now the ticket element to factor because with it, lies a possible circumvention of diplomatic suppression.

While one sees themselves for statesmen, others see for a tyrant. Trump is no stranger to this just as Putin and Xi Jinping have endured criticism. But this state of affairs is what if forming a paradox. Trump is resolute on effecting the ‘Make America Great Again’ project, but so are his far East adversaries. To all, tyranny is what many onlookers have expressed. The complexity has called for restraint in enforcement as noted by Putin regarding a slowed process of modeling a BRICS currency, halting the idea indefinitely for until it can be revived. However, that is not a case for other BRICS members who certainly have their attention seasoned to realising a BRICS currency. It suffices to say that while the fears of potential loss of the current currency dominance has been brushed off by Europe as nonexistent, President Trump’s statements against the BRICS idea rather gives a new outlook to potentially what might perhaps become public.

It is not common in international relations that events happen denied earlier turn out true and so is the timing, given the drastic BRICS membership extension. The US is going to scrap on new battle lines, this time not more of warfare as gunned into its current government’s philosophy of ‘each country’s internal fragile politics, to be determined internally without US intervention’ unless it concerns it, but rather a mild shake up of how far it would go if the BRICS member states finally put a final leg across the finish line. Expectations suffice, and to be fair, the pushback on sanctions. The ICC has gradually been falling for the outcry of impartiality and so were the sanctions against Israel’s Premier. More to look out for battle lines in Washington DC. It is going to be an interesting term in administration for the new US Executive regarding inherited conflicts, and shaping controversies.

But it remains certain that international trade and commerce is kind. Own it, own power. China figured this out in its shaping of the Industrial age and for decades now, manifestation is being showcased in its financial situation. That it is part of BRICS is another storyline. Two of the West’s greatest adversaries continue expanding alliances and since 2019, the shakeup has gained greater tract at it epicenter. One way or another, the BRICS currency will manifest, and when it does, the paradox will find new meaning. It may take decades to achieve, but with the present global tension, Trump will only slow the process.

The writer is a Lawyer and Senior Research Fellow, Development Watch Center .

America’s 2023 Country Report on Human Rights Practices: Who Policices the USA?

Posted on By Alan Collins Mpewo

On 22nd April, 2024, the US Congress with a fore note from the Secretary of State, Antony J. Blinken, issued the 2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for all other countries that are on earth, except itself. It has been a practice it has committed itself into fulfilling since 1977 and not so much can be said as having started with bad intentions. In deed, human rights are a concern supposed to keep every person (individual or artificial) on high attention to either advance, protect or preserve. It’s therefore a commendable practice thus far. Many countries across the globe have its citizens suffering at hands of human rights violators in all forms. Some of these are out of territorial breaches, while others are internally castigated by kinsmen and kinswomen whose jobs it should be to do better. Lives still get lost for example, in many African, Latin America, and the Middle East at hands of both internal and external perpetrators. In unison with the subject reports, this is wrong, and should never be normalized as practice anywhere.

The forewords by Antony Blinken were interesting, especially how they described Kremlin’s actions in Ukraine, versus the description of Israel’s actions in Palestine. Interesting still, the language used to condemn practices by the People’s Republic of China. But while on a look out of a balanced analysis of the report, of all the countries as noted, the US could not bring forth a report on itself and how it’s ‘respecting’ human rights both internally and abroad. So, who polices the US foreign policies? It remains an unsolved question for many years despite many dissenters pointing it out, that while it’s commendable to make focus of other world key players regarding human rights practices, the watch should equally be made on the US, by itself and other state and non-state actors. As noted in the reports’ forewords, it points to major monitoring on states from whom US aid is supplied. That shouldn’t be passed off as a conflicting situation for the recipients, and therefore a compromise on taking equal watch on the donor.

As noted in the report, it coincides with the 75th anniversary of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and at its inception, Eleanor Roosevelt, one of the authors of the UDHR noted, “The destiny of human rights is in the hands of all our citizens in all our communities.” It is an indictment on everyone to take center attention. The US as it did at the time of inception of the UDHR, committed to preserving human rights especially abroad but 2023 was quite an interesting year regarding the US foreign policies and it remains a non shocking scenario that the US couldn’t publish a similar report on itself and its activities. Rather, as many years before, any such statements on global state of affairs come as justification for their actions rather than self condemnation.

2023 was an equally busy year for the US especially in the middle east, and while the Israel-Palestine and Ukraine-Russia conflicts steal the attention for US actions, in similar measure as it maintained focus on Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act, and consequential withdraw of funding, Cuba’s regime actions, Nicaragua’s government crackdown on dissent, Russia territorial breach on Ukraine’s border, and much more, the US had a run on Iraq and Syria. For many years now, the middle east has been a military play ground for the US. Many countries have consistently condemned the US involvement in the region’s politics citing instigation of more incitement. Baghdad condemned the strikes by the US on its territory which occasioned deaths and wounding of Iraqi citizens.

Of these attacks in the region since October 7, 2023 since the Israel-Hamas war peaked, there have been reported more than 66 separate attacks in the region. This comes off as though it’s the US so much concerned about stability of the region, using war to being more war. The attacks have been gazetted as warranted and even with the wanton killing of numerous civilians in the region by the US in 2023, it didn’t call for equal urgency to issue a report on its own human rights violations. Much as there are numerous world actors that have consistently showed concern and more especially with the players with valuable commercial interests in the area, not many are willing to raise a finger at the self appointed global police. This happens at a time when the United Nations, a body supposed to be impartial has been spotlighted as running selective interests to the West bloc.

As of April 2024, the US faces internal concerns regarding respecting the freedoms of expression and association that are guaranteed by the first amendment of the country’s constitution. Over 200 students across major Universities have been arrested and more crackdowns are still ongoing on the students protesting Israel’s war actions in Palestine. From the Northeastern University in Boston, to Yale, Columbia, Southern California, and more Universities joining the protests against the ongoing war, many peaceful protestors have been arrested and charged with inciting violence, vandalism, and criminal trespass, accusations many have criticized as unfounded, embarrassing to the national image, and illegal. But just as Anthony Blinken quoted Eleanor Roosevelt, human rights are a concern for all, and it’s only fair that in 2024 and years to come, similar documentation on both triumphs and condemnation be issued against the US by the US as it does annually for other global actors.

Alan Collins Mpewo is a Senior Research Fellow, Development Watch Centre.

America’s 2023 Country Report on Human Rights Practices: Who Policies the USA?

Posted on By Alan Collins Mpewo

On 22nd April, 2024, the US Congress with a fore note from the Secretary of State, Antony J. Blinken, issued the 2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for all other countries that are on earth, except itself. It has been a practice it has committed itself into fulfilling since 1977 and not so much can be said as having started with bad intentions. In deed, human rights are a concern supposed to keep every person (individual or artificial) on high attention to either advance, protect or preserve. It’s therefore a commendable practice thus far. Many countries across the globe have its citizens suffering at hands of human rights violators in all forms. Some of these are out of territorial breaches, while others are internally castigated by kinsmen and kinswomen whose jobs it should be to do better. Lives still get lost for example, in many African, Latin America, and the Middle East at hands of both internal and external perpetrators. In unison with the subject reports, this is wrong, and should never be normalized as practice anywhere.

The forewords by Antony Blinken were interesting, especially how they described Kremlin’s actions in Ukraine, versus the description of Israel’s actions in Palestine. Interesting still, the language used to condemn practices by the People’s Republic of China. But while on a look out of a balanced analysis of the report, of all the countries as noted, the US could not bring forth a report on itself and how it’s ‘respecting’ human rights both internally and abroad. So, who polices the US foreign policies? It remains an unsolved question for many years despite many dissenters pointing it out, that while it’s commendable to make focus of other world key players regarding human rights practices, the watch should equally be made on the US, by itself and other state and non-state actors. As noted in the reports’ forewords, it points to major monitoring on states from whom US aid is supplied. That shouldn’t be passed off as a conflicting situation for the recipients, and therefore a compromise on taking equal watch on the donor.

As noted in the report, it coincides with the 75th anniversary of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and at its inception, Eleanor Roosevelt, one of the authors of the UDHR noted, “The destiny of human rights is in the hands of all our citizens in all our communities.” It is an indictment on everyone to take center attention. The US as it did at the time of inception of the UDHR, committed to preserving human rights especially abroad but 2023 was quite an interesting year regarding the US foreign policies and it remains a non shocking scenario that the US couldn’t publish a similar report on itself and its activities. Rather, as many years before, any such statements on global state of affairs come as justification for their actions rather than self condemnation.

2023 was an equally busy year for the US especially in the middle east, and while the Israel-Palestine and Ukraine-Russia conflicts steal the attention for US actions, in similar measure as it maintained focus on Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act, and consequential withdraw of funding, Cuba’s regime actions, Nicaragua’s government crackdown on dissent, Russia territorial breach on Ukraine’s border, and much more, the US had a run on Iraq and Syria. For many years now, the middle east has been a military play ground for the US. Many countries have consistently condemned the US involvement in the region’s politics citing instigation of more incitement. Baghdad condemned the strikes by the US on its territory which occasioned deaths and wounding of Iraqi citizens.

Of these attacks in the region since October 7, 2023 since the Israel-Hamas war peaked, there have been reported more than 66 separate attacks in the region. This comes off as though it’s the US so much concerned about stability of the region, using war to being more war. The attacks have been gazetted as warranted and even with the wanton killing of numerous civilians in the region by the US in 2023, it didn’t call for equal urgency to issue a report on its own human rights violations. Much as there are numerous world actors that have consistently showed concern and more especially with the players with valuable commercial interests in the area, not many are willing to raise a finger at the self appointed global police. This happens at a time when the United Nations, a body supposed to be impartial has been spotlighted as running selective interests to the West bloc.

As of April 2024, the US faces internal concerns regarding respecting the freedoms of expression and association that are guaranteed by the first amendment of the country’s constitution. Over 200 students across major Universities have been arrested and more crackdowns are still ongoing on the students protesting Israel’s war actions in Palestine. From the Northeastern University in Boston, to Yale, Columbia, Southern California, and more Universities joining the protests against the ongoing war, many peaceful protestors have been arrested and charged with inciting violence, vandalism, and criminal trespass, accusations many have criticized as unfounded, embarrassing to the national image, and illegal. But just as Anthony Blinken quoted Eleanor Roosevelt, human rights are a concern for all, and it’s only fair that in 2024 and years to come, similar documentation on both triumphs and condemnation be issued against the US by the US as it does annually for other global actors.

Alan Collins Mpewo is a Senior Research Fellow, Development Watch Centre.

Anti-Western Backlash and the need to rethink governance in Africa

Posted on By Nnanda Kizito Sseruwagi

USAID has one of the most appealing organisational commitments ever encapsulated in a mission statement. On behalf of the American people, they commit to promoting and demonstrating democratic values abroad and advancing a free, peaceful, and prosperous world. They are devoted to supporting America’s foreign policy by leading the U.S. Government’s international development and disaster assistance through partnerships and investments that save lives, reduce poverty, strengthen democratic governance, and help people emerge from humanitarian crises and progress beyond assistance.

USAID aims to support its partners to become self-reliant and capable of leading their development journeys. They are dedicated to fostering sustainable development and advancing human dignity globally. USAID is also keen on inclusion, supporting programs that advance equality of all people in communities regardless of their gender, sexual orientation or physical abilities.

Europe and North America pour billions into Africa to promote good governance and support the fight against poverty and corruption. Western intentions seem genuinely supportive and innocuous for Africa. So, why are African leaders and an increasing number of African elites drastically reacting negatively to Western policies? Are Western values under threat by this backlash? If so, why?

Firstly, the West needs the humility to accept that they are ignorant of how Africa (by “Africa” I mean “Sub-Saharan Africa” to be more specific) functions and how Africans’ world view & values, despite deep Western acculturation through colonialism, remain traditional in fundamental ways. The assumption that Western values are inherently right and universal is simply wrong. The West needs to first put these assumptions at bay before they profoundly engage Africa if they genuinely intend to help it.

The U.S. and Europe should support Africa based on African realities, not their Western ideas of what Africa must be like. Doing otherwise would be like medicating a dummy.

As an African, I understand fully that democracy, inclusion, human rights and governance are very necessary for my well-being. But my living conditions, economic status and cultural sensibilities are the fodder out of which these values must be manufactured, not from lectures, statutes, or sanctions from the West.

The West should be patient with us as they were with themselves while developing these aspects of governance in a manner compatible with their cultural values and living conditions. Sanctions are not going to instantly groom African homophobes to love homosexuals or respect their rights. But there are so many Africans who respect and advocate for minority rights by virtue of their humanity, who are now unfortunately opposed to the West on nationalistic grounds because Western interventions under the guise of defending minority rights undermine an even greater ideal- the sovereignty of African states.

These states, with their elderly ruling elite class, have a fresh memory of colonial occupation and barbarity. They are therefore reasonably going to be opposed to the West, erupting into the backlash we see today.

Whereas well-intentioned, Western support for Africa with its intended effect of modelling African states in the image of modern Western states, especially about governance, is misplaced.  The West views governance in Africa generally based on cliches. Cliches always have an element of truth, which overrides nuance for the analytically feeble analysts who reproduce these cliches as the full picture of Africa in scholarly work, human rights activism, and social commentary.

There is a rational explanation for how African leaders behave and how our politics organizes itself. The West should not think of this organisation as backward or irrational. Though imperfect in several ways, often the ways our politics works are not intended or designed by our leaders based on their virtues. Rather, this politics curves itself out of the realities it finds on the ground.

Western governance values evolved out of political contestations on the ground. They did not befall on them like manna from heaven.  Both the ground and the nature of political contestations in Africa are unique from those out of which the Western experience was shaped. Therefore, we cannot function the same way, even though we find certain Western values attractive and indeed, we aspire to embrace them. But we need to embrace them on our terms, not on dictates and conditionalities.

We should not and cannot de-historicize the past realities out of which our current experiences emerge. But we can work together to shape a better future for governance in Africa.

If Western powers maintain the stance that African countries are in disarray and must first conform to particular Western governance models and principles to earn their aid, they will have failed on the first step for rendering transformative support. It may be that the constitution and functionality of the state in contemporary Africa will never conform to Western notions of political modernity. Yet, the same state could evolve synonymous values as those cherished in the West. The evolution of states in Africa will not necessarily take the form of modern Western states, and that should not be the basis for punishing us with aid cuts or economic sanctions.

The writer is a Senior Research Fellow at the Development Watch Centre.