From Aid to Empowerment

The recent decision by Secretary of State Marco Rubio to significantly reduce the USAID programmes in Africa has reignited debates about Washington’s long-term role on the continent. The 83 per cent 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 programmes 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 per cent of US aid to Africa has been allocated to health programmes, 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 programmes.

One of the major criticisms of USAID and similar foreign aid programmes is that a substantial portion of the funds are absorbed by administrative costs, consultants, and NGOs rather than directly benefiting the intended recipients. The reliance on intermediaries rather than direct government-to-government assistance has resulted in inefficiencies, limiting the impact of aid on the ground. Additionally, USAID projects are often constrained by ideological considerations and bureaucratic red tape, which further hinders their effectiveness.

Moreover, while foreign aid has undoubtedly played a role in mitigating crises, it has also fostered a cycle of dependency in some African nations. Many governments have come to rely on continuous external assistance rather than developing sustainable economic policies and strengthening their domestic institutions. In some cases, aid has even been linked to corruption and mismanagement, raising concerns about its long-term viability.

Rather than interpreting the reduction in USAID funding as an abandonment of Africa, the US should view this as an opportunity to rethink and improve its approach. Instead of focusing on direct aid that often comes with inefficiencies and unintended consequences, Washington should prioritise investments, trade partnerships, and capacity-building initiatives that empower African nations to take control of their own destinies.

One way to achieve this is by fostering private sector engagement. Encouraging American companies to invest in Africa’s industries, particularly in sectors such as technology, renewable energy, and agriculture, would not only drive economic growth but also create jobs and reduce dependence on foreign aid. Programmes that facilitate entrepreneurship and small business development could further enhance Africa’s economic resilience.

Additionally, the US should emphasise infrastructure development in a way that directly benefits local communities. Unlike China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which has been criticised for creating debt traps, the US can adopt a model that prioritises transparent, mutually beneficial agreements that enhance African self-sufficiency rather than perpetuate reliance on external funding.

Despite the need for a shift away from traditional aid, there are still critical areas where US support remains essential. Healthcare, for instance, is an area where continued American involvement can make a significant impact. Many African nations still struggle with inadequate healthcare systems, and diseases such as HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis continue to pose major challenges. While USAID’s funding cuts will undoubtedly create difficulties, alternative methods of assistance, such as public-private partnerships, should be explored to ensure that critical health programmes remain operational.

Education is another sector that warrants sustained investment. Strengthening African education systems and providing technical training programmes can equip young people with the skills needed to contribute to their countries’ development. Expanding scholarship programmes and academic exchanges between US and African universities can also foster stronger ties between the two regions.

Africa is home to an abundance of natural resources, including 30 per cent of the world’s known mineral reserves. The continent possesses vast quantities of gold, diamonds, platinum, copper, uranium, and oil, yet many of these resources are underutilised or exploited by external actors with minimal benefit to local populations. Rather than perpetuating a system where foreign corporations extract Africa’s wealth without reinvesting in local economies, the US should support initiatives that help African nations maximise the value of their resources.

Encouraging fair trade policies, improving resource governance, and supporting local industries can help African nations take full advantage of their mineral wealth. Furthermore, Africa’s potential in renewable energy—especially solar and wind—represents an opportunity for sustainable development. The US can play a crucial role in helping African nations harness these resources in an environmentally responsible manner, reducing their dependence on fossil fuels while also creating new economic opportunities.

One of the main mistakes in discussing US engagement in Africa is framing it as a competition with China. While China’s influence on the continent has undoubtedly grown through its extensive infrastructure projects and financial investments, US policy should not be driven by a desire to counter Chinese expansion. Instead, Washington should focus on building genuine partnerships based on mutual interests and respect.

African nations should not be treated as mere chess pieces in a broader geopolitical struggle. Rather than attempting to limit China’s presence, the US should differentiate itself by offering an alternative model—one that prioritises transparency, accountability, and sustainable development. Supporting African-led initiatives and reinforcing local governance structures would demonstrate a commitment to true partnership rather than geopolitical manoeuvring.

The drastic cuts to USAID should not signal the end of US engagement in Africa. Instead, they should serve as a catalyst for a new, more effective approach—one that prioritises economic partnerships, infrastructure development, healthcare, education, and local empowerment. Rather than perpetuating a cycle of dependency, Washington should focus on fostering self-sufficiency and resilience across the continent.

Africa deserves the generosity of the American people, but that generosity should be channelled in a way that delivers tangible, lasting benefits. By shifting its focus from aid to investment, the US can build a stronger, more productive relationship with Africa—one that is based on collaboration, shared interests, and a commitment to long-term development. This is not about preventing China or Russia from gaining influence; it is about doing what is right and ensuring that Africa has the resources and support needed to thrive on its own terms.

M A Hossain
The writer is a political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh. He can be reached at writetomahossain@gmail.com