What Does the End of USAID Mean for Sub-Saharan Africa?
On March 10, a seismic shift in U.S. foreign policy was announced: the abrupt termination of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)’s programs in Africa. This move, which will see 83% of aid removed, has significant implications for the continent, particularly Sub-Saharan Africa. This region, which is the second-largest beneficiary of USAID after Ukraine, will face substantial challenges as a result of this decision.
The Impact on Sub-Saharan Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa, which received 40% of USAID’s budget in 2023, is poised to feel the brunt of these changes. Countries like Somalia, the Central African Republic, Liberia, Malawi, and Mozambique have been the primary recipients of USAID aid, which is channelled into crucial sectors including humanitarian aid (47%), health (38%), and economic development (8%).
Health Care Policy and Economic Development
Health Sector
The health sector in Sub-Saharan Africa heavily depended on USAID’s programs. The agency has been pivotal in combating regional pandemics, such as HIV in southern Africa and the Ebola virus in Uganda. The cessation of these programs could lead to a resurgence of these deadly diseases, posing a significant threat to local populations. The sudden discontinuation of aid also includes disproportionate conflicts with other health care policy organisations.
<Did you know?: USAID allocated nearly $500 million to fight HIV/AIDS in southern Africa last year alone.>
Democratic Stability
2024 is set to be a record year for elections in Africa, and the end of USAID could weaken the democratic process. The void left by the American agency may be exploited by violent organizations, potentially leading to coups and undermining democratic institutions.
Peace and Security
In terms of peace and security, the end of USAID could see a return of armed conflicts affecting civilian populations. Jihadist threats in Somalia and the proliferation of drug trafficking are key issues that have been mitigated by USAID’s interventions. Removing this support could exacerbate these problems, leading to increased violence and insecurity.
.
U.S. Foreign Policy
The decision to dismantle USAID is rooted in the "America First" policy, which prioritizes U.S. national interests over international partnerships. This policy aims to secure direct national benefits, particularly in the mineral industry, by renegotiating strategic agreements with African countries.
The potential renegotiation of these agreements could lead to significant trade benefits for the U.S. However, this transactional approach may weaken the U.S.’s strategic position, especially in the face of competitors like China.
<Pro Tip: Countries that rely heavily on USAID aid, such as Somalia and Liberia, should look into diversifying their financial support to mitigate the impact of this policy shift.>
Trading Path for Future actions with African Countries
Analysis of the six Sub-Saharan countries—South Africa, Nigeria, Ghana, Niger, Liberia, and Togo—that significantly export to the U.S. shows they are highly susceptible to pricing reciprocity. The U.S. administration’s new approach may benefit commercially, but it could also undermine its strategic position.
The Rise of Chinese Influence
The United States’ downscaling of its influence in Africa has created an opportunity for China to step in. The absence of Secretary of State Marco Rubio at the G20 ministerial meeting in Johannesburg in February sent a clear diplomatic signal. China, traditionally focused on exploiting African mineral resources, now sees an opportunity to position itself as a key player in economic development on the continent.
Beijing’s recent announcement of a $50 billion commitment at the China-Africa summit underscores a significant shift in regional power dynamics. This move could pressure the Trump administration to re-evaluate its position, potentially leading to a reversal or adjustment of its current policies. Dismantling USAID may result in the U.S. losing its current dominant position, especially if China capitalizes on the opportunity.
<case Study:
The European Union has already announced increasing measures to tackle future conflict in African countries post withdrawal of USAID programs.>
USAID’s Beneficials projects and Expenditures
The table below highlights the impact of USAID’s programs on key sectors in Sub-Saharan Africa:
| Key Sector | Percentage of USAID Budget | Significant Programs | Countries Benefited |
|---|---|---|---|
| Humanitarian Aid | 47% | Emergency relief, food security, disaster response | Somalia, Central African Republic, Liberia, Malawi, Mozambique |
| Health | 38% | Combating HIV, Ebola, malaria, maternal health | Southern Africa, Uganda, Malawi, Mozambique |
| Economic Development | 8% | Agriculture, infrastructure, small business development | Sub-Saharan countries |
FAQ on Future trends in USAID
What are the immediate consequences of the end of USAID programs?
The immediate consequences include increased vulnerability to regional pandemics, weakening of democratic processes, and a potential rise in armed conflicts.
How will this affect trade relations with the U.S.?
The U.S. may seek to renegotiate trade agreements to favor its own interests, which could lead to trade benefits but may also weaken U.S. strategic influence on the continent.
Is China’s possible rise a significant concern for the U.S.?
Yes, China’s potential expansion in Africa could significantly alter the regional power dynamics, particularly in areas previously dominated by the U.S.
What does this mean for countries highly dependent on USAID aid?
Countries like Somalia, the Central African Republic, and others will face challenges in sectors such as health, humanitarian aid, and economic development, which could lead to increased instability and conflict.