论文部分内容阅读
Following the Donald Trump administration’s recent targeted ban on travel to the United States affecting seven Muslim-majority countries， three of which， Somalia， Libya and Sudan are in Africa， and the subsequent temporary halt on the ban by a U.S. federal judge， Africans seem destabilized by the new American policy.
Hichem Karoui， non-resident senior fellow at the Center for China and Globalization， examines what the U.S. policy in Africa could be.
VARIOUS U.S. administrations over the years have been unanimous in their viewpoint on terrorism. But now the question must be asked， “can we succeed in the fight against terrorism by advancing anti-globalist theses such as ‘America first？’”
On the one hand， even with banning citizens from seven countries， the United States is still at risk of undergoing a terrorist operation. Those responsible for 9/11 terrorist attacks were living in Europe， not in Africa， and they were not Africans. On the other hand， none of the banned African countries of Somalia， Libya and Sudan have had citizens involved in terrorist operations inside the United States.
Remember that previous U.S. Governments have made a concerted effort to support African countries fighting “jihadist”terrorism， including Boko Haram in Nigeria， AQIM in the Maghreb and al-Shabab in Somalia. The U.S. military advisers and trainers are still present on the ground throughout the Sahel region， Djibouti and Nigeria. There are also intelligence drones in the Republic of Niger. So given Trump’s strong rhetoric on terrorism， some diplomats believe that the same policy as in the past should be pursued.
But it’s not just military aid.
During his presidential campaign， Trump did not hide the fact that he intended to review （maybe revoke） agreements that are not beneficial to the United States. For the African Growth and Opportunity Act（AGOA）， the benefits may seem uneven. Especially in the last decade， as the European Union has implemented economic partnership agreements across Africa， requiring African governments to give preferential access to European goods， services and businesses.
Analysts say that American products are increasingly at a significant tariff disadvantage in Africa and Trump is thus more likely to see AGOA as a “bad” trade agreement rather than an innovative economic development program based on boosting trade.
But while Trump’s campaign focused heavily on U.S. relations with some big countries， he did not talk about Africa from a political perspective. Joseph Schmitz， Trump Campaign Advisor， described the policy objectives of his administration for Africa at a recent Wilson Center event saying the Trump administration will be smart on African aid and trade， adding that a key to the U.S.-African relationship under Trump administration will be striving to eliminate corruption in Africa and Washington alike. The new U.S. president is a businessman and a trader， not a warlord. Yet， because his country is involved in wars of various dimensions， including the campaign against terrorism， he seems tempted to use “big means” to resolve issues. Oddly， Trump’s anti-globalism has taken on a security appearance. Those who criticize him ask why he has not found a better way to deal with this issue than by forbidding people to enter the United States.
None of the three banned African countries has at this point big trade exchanges with the United States. They have therefore not been chosen by chance. From a strict business point of view， Africans have more to lose from the travel ban - if it is applied -than American businesses. The ban would abruptly stop business travel from the three countries that have been targeted because U.S. businesses practically do not exist there. But Somalis， Sudanese and Libyan business people indeed need the United States.
It seems a very much wait-and-see approach is needed to understand what“America first” will mean in the U.S. engagement with Africa.
Hichem Karoui， non-resident senior fellow at the Center for China and Globalization， examines what the U.S. policy in Africa could be.
VARIOUS U.S. administrations over the years have been unanimous in their viewpoint on terrorism. But now the question must be asked， “can we succeed in the fight against terrorism by advancing anti-globalist theses such as ‘America first？’”
On the one hand， even with banning citizens from seven countries， the United States is still at risk of undergoing a terrorist operation. Those responsible for 9/11 terrorist attacks were living in Europe， not in Africa， and they were not Africans. On the other hand， none of the banned African countries of Somalia， Libya and Sudan have had citizens involved in terrorist operations inside the United States.
Remember that previous U.S. Governments have made a concerted effort to support African countries fighting “jihadist”terrorism， including Boko Haram in Nigeria， AQIM in the Maghreb and al-Shabab in Somalia. The U.S. military advisers and trainers are still present on the ground throughout the Sahel region， Djibouti and Nigeria. There are also intelligence drones in the Republic of Niger. So given Trump’s strong rhetoric on terrorism， some diplomats believe that the same policy as in the past should be pursued.
But it’s not just military aid.
During his presidential campaign， Trump did not hide the fact that he intended to review （maybe revoke） agreements that are not beneficial to the United States. For the African Growth and Opportunity Act（AGOA）， the benefits may seem uneven. Especially in the last decade， as the European Union has implemented economic partnership agreements across Africa， requiring African governments to give preferential access to European goods， services and businesses.
Analysts say that American products are increasingly at a significant tariff disadvantage in Africa and Trump is thus more likely to see AGOA as a “bad” trade agreement rather than an innovative economic development program based on boosting trade.
But while Trump’s campaign focused heavily on U.S. relations with some big countries， he did not talk about Africa from a political perspective. Joseph Schmitz， Trump Campaign Advisor， described the policy objectives of his administration for Africa at a recent Wilson Center event saying the Trump administration will be smart on African aid and trade， adding that a key to the U.S.-African relationship under Trump administration will be striving to eliminate corruption in Africa and Washington alike. The new U.S. president is a businessman and a trader， not a warlord. Yet， because his country is involved in wars of various dimensions， including the campaign against terrorism， he seems tempted to use “big means” to resolve issues. Oddly， Trump’s anti-globalism has taken on a security appearance. Those who criticize him ask why he has not found a better way to deal with this issue than by forbidding people to enter the United States.
None of the three banned African countries has at this point big trade exchanges with the United States. They have therefore not been chosen by chance. From a strict business point of view， Africans have more to lose from the travel ban - if it is applied -than American businesses. The ban would abruptly stop business travel from the three countries that have been targeted because U.S. businesses practically do not exist there. But Somalis， Sudanese and Libyan business people indeed need the United States.
It seems a very much wait-and-see approach is needed to understand what“America first” will mean in the U.S. engagement with Africa.