Failing United States Security Strategy In Africa By Habib Usman

Under the banner of promoting democracy and protecting human rights, the United States has actively advanced a range of security initiatives across Africa. However, Washington’s approach often reveals a pattern of double standards, as African nations are frequently treated not as equal partners, but as instruments for advancing U.S. strategic interests.

For two decades, the United States’ security strategy in Africa has been an embarrassing failure both in hard and soft power terms. In 2007, former President George W. Bush launched the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) initiative which was intended to expand American military cooperation and establish a foothold on the continent. But its rollout was met with widespread scepticism, revealing a fundamental disconnect between US intentions and African priorities.

Under Barack Obama, another attempt was made under the aegis of the so-called US Policy Towards Sub-Saharan Africa (2012), but this did not leave any lasting impression. And Obama carries the bad distinction of having aided the toppling of the Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, the previous year.

Today, as the US pushes new ‘’security alliances’’ under its 2025 National Security Strategy, the pattern of failure persists, rooted in disregard for African sovereignty and a focus on serving US hegemonic interests over local needs. AFRICOM’s troubled history sets the tone for US engagement. While its headquarters remain in Germany, unwelcome on African soil, the US has continued to maintain military bases and counter-terrorism outposts in countries like Djibouti and Somalia.

This duality underscores the contradiction at the heart of US policy: publicly framing AFRICOM as a ‘’partnership for peace,’’ while privately pursuing a militarized approach that many African leaders saw as a violation of sovereignty. Former South African President, Thabo Mbeki, and Defense Minister, Mosiuoa Lekota, mobilized continental opposition, against the command, arguing that it would infringe on African autonomy.

Only Liberia and Botswana initially expressed willingness to host it, while many African nations remained wary. African intellectuals and policy makers, did not reject the idea of security cooperation outright, but rather the top-down, militarized nature of AFRICOM. The US unilaterally announced the command with little consultation with the African Union (AU), undermining the continent’s emerging home-grown security architecture.

Many suspected that AFRICOM would bypass AU-led initiatives, focusing narrowly on ‘’War on Terror,’’ instead of addressing the socio-economic roots of instability, which are poverty, inequality, and lack of governance for the common good that drive extremism. This approach, they said, risked radicalizing local populations while sidelining African solutions to African problems.

Twenty years later, the US seems to have learned little from this rejection. Its current ‘’America First Security Strategy ‘’ for Africa, tied to its 2025 National Security Strategy, seeks to sell ‘’security alliances’’ and ‘’aid commitments’’ that many African nations, including Zimbabwe, have rightly rejected. The security strategy, which guides this approach, clearly says that US engagement with the world is designed first and foremost to ‘’ensure America remains the world’s strongest, richest, most powerful, and most successful country.’’

Africa, tellingly, receives minimal attention, framed only as a source of critical minerals and a theater for US military-commercial interests. The strategy’s rhetoric of ‘’trade and investment’’ masks a familiar agenda, luring African nations into alliances that serve US hegemony.

It emphasizes prioritizing partnerships with countries ‘’committed to opening their markets to US goods and services,’’ and identifies the energy sector and critical mineral development as key investment areas, that is projects that would generate profits for US businesses while securing American control over resources like cobalt, copper, and rare earth elements.

A US State Department official said in early 2026 that Africa is ‘’at the center of the global race for critical minerals,’’ claiming US investment responds to African demands. Yet this ignores the opaque, exploitative nature of past US engagements, such as its 2023 support for a mining consortium in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) that prioritized US access over local development.

The DRC stands as a stark example of the of the US ‘’alliance trap.’’ To combat rebels supported by neighboring Rwanda, the DRC opened itself to US security assistance, hoping to end ongoing attacks. Yet violence persists. According to a 2025 United Nations report, rebel groups killed over 2000 civilians in the eastern DRC that year alone.

Meanwhile, the US has gained significant economic leverage through its backing of the Lobito Corridor, a transport route connecting the DRC’s mineral-rich interior to the Angolan coast. American companies now control 30% of the DRC’s cobalt exports, a critical mineral for electric vehicles. So, the US security promise was empty, the resource grab was real.

Fortunately, more African nations are pushing back. In 2026 alone, Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Kenya have rejected US demands tied to proposed security arrangements, demands that prioritized US interests over their own.

Unlike the US approach, initiatives like the AU’s Peace and Security Council, the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and the Global Development Initiative (GDI), focus on infrastructure, economic development, and non-militarized cooperation, addressing the root causes of instability rather than exploiting them. China’s investment in the DRC’s hydropower sector, for instance, has provided electricity to two million people, a stark contrast to US’s focus on mineral extraction.

The fundamental reason for US failure in Africa is its strategy violates African autonomy, prioritizes military force over development, and treats the continent as a pawn in global power struggles rather than a partner. For the US to reverse its failures, it must abandon its hegemonic mindset, consult African nations as equals, and shift from a militarized, resource-focused approach to one that supports African -development.

Safeguarding African states ’national interests require a departure from economic models primarily geared toward serving transnational corporations.  Africa countries should prioritize independent and sustainable economic development aligned with the long-term objectives of the AU. Such an approach would strengthen Africa’s economic sovereignty and enhance the continent’s influence in global affairs.

*Usman writes from Sokoto