Democracy Promotion Is Obviously Not What Ails U.S. Africa Policy

It simply isn’t true that the U.S. has treated Africa policy as a laboratory for such activism.

Walter Russell Mead invents a fantasy version of U.S. foreign policy in Africa to suit his argument:

Why has the West been so hapless [in Africa]? In part because this is a difficult part of the world to do business in. Most governments are weak, tribal loyalties matter more than formal institutions, borders are loose, and civil societies are fragmented. In addition, almost everyone in the region hates France, the former colonial power and traditionally the most active outside force there. But it’s also because the U.S. foreign-policy system has designated Africa policy as a kind of laboratory for human-rights activism and democracy promotion [bold mine-DL].

The U.S. has prioritized counterterrorism and security cooperation in its dealings with most African countries over the last twenty-five years. It simply isn’t true that the U.S. has treated Africa policy as a laboratory for such activism. The truth is that the “military first” approach that the U.S. has had in many countries hasn’t worked, and the U.S. has very little besides security assistance to offer its African partner states. The failure of U.S. policy in Africa is closely linked to the larger failure of the “war on terror.”