Was Trump's Africa summit just outsourcing America's immigration problem?
United States (US) President Donald Trump hosted a mini-summit with five African leaders in the White House last week. It was surprising that he met with African leaders at all, given his stance towards the continent. His choice of countries was also interesting — why Senegal, Mauritania, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia and Gabon?
Trump told the delegates his administration was 'committed to strengthening our friendships in Africa through economic development efforts that benefit both the US and our partners. And we're shifting from aid to trade,' noting that he had just scrapped the US Agency for International Development (USAid).
As to the five countries in attendance, he said they all had 'great land, great minerals, oil deposits', and that he wanted to discuss security. Trump encouraged the leaders to invest more in defence and to 'keep pursuing the fight against terrorism, which is a big problem in Africa'.
'Immigration will also be on the agenda, and I hope we can bring down the high rates of people overstaying visas, and also make progress on the Safe Third Country Agreements.'
The supposed wealth of these five countries in critical minerals has been offered as the main reason for their invitation. Mauritanian President Mohamed Ould Ghazouani said his country had 'minerals, rare earths, rare minerals', including manganese, uranium and probably lithium, and was the second-largest African iron ore producer.
Liberian President Joseph Boakai also said his country had many minerals and asked for US help in surveying them. Trump added an unintentional comic note by commending Boakai for his 'beautiful English'. He asked where Boakai had learnt to speak it — seemingly unaware that English is Liberia's official language. The country was, after all, founded in the 19th century by free slaves from the US.
Critical minerals
Gabon's President Brice Clotaire Oligui Nguema also stressed that his country had oil and gas and critical minerals, including manganese, and invited the US to invest in processing it locally, including building the necessary electricity capacity. He said that if the US did not invest, others would. And he appealed to Trump to help Gabon stop maritime piracy in the Gulf of Guinea.
Senegal's President Bassirou Diomaye Faye noted that the US was conducting a geological survey in Senegal to help assess the potential of minerals. He added that thanks to US companies, Senegal had discovered oil and about 950 billion cubic metres of gas.
So critical and other minerals, and oil and gas, were clearly a factor in the choice of the five. So was security in a chronically insecure region. Some believe the US is looking for countries to host its military bases after Niger's junta forced out the US hub at Agadez.
Trump also boasted about the recent US-brokered peace deal between the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Rwanda. Most of the African leaders thanked him for this, urging him to fulfil his intention to likewise broker peace in Sudan and Libya.
But was immigration to the US — a key domestic issue for Trump — the real heart of the matter? The Wall Street Journal reported that before the summit, the US administration sent the five countries requests to accept deportees from the US whose home countries refused them or were slow to take them back.
According to an internal document seen by The Wall Street Journal, the African countries would have to agree not to return transferred asylum seekers 'to their home country or country of former habitual residence until a final decision has been made' on their claims for asylum in the US.
This arrangement appears similar to that between the former Conservative United Kingdom (UK) government and Rwanda, but which was scrapped last year by the Labour government, which said the deal had not deterred migrants to the UK.
Reports say America previously tried to persuade Nigeria to accept an agreement with Venezuelan deportees — but Abuja refused. This might suggest that Trump is turning to smaller, perhaps more pliable, countries to try to persuade them to accept asylum seekers or deportees.
The Guardian reported on Wednesday that five men from Vietnam, Jamaica, Laos, Cuba and Yemen — convicted of crimes ranging from child rape to murder — had arrived in Eswatini on a Safe Third Country deportation flight from the US. On 4 July, the US deported eight men convicted of violent crimes to South Sudan.
It is unclear how the five African governments responded to Trump's request, and none mentioned it in the public part of the meeting.
Two overlapping goals
Institute for Security Studies (ISS) Research Officer Zenge Simakoloyi said Trump's summit seemed mainly to have two overlapping goals: to test the waters on processing asylum seekers offshore, and to diversify US critical mineral supply chains away from China. Nigeria's rejection of the Venezuelans suggested that externalising the US immigration problem would be difficult, he said.
According to Aimée-Noël Mbiyozo, ISS Migration Senior Research Consultant: 'There are no good precedents for outsourcing asylum processes.' She noted that the Australian effort to do so had cost at least A$1-billion annually since 2012, and had 'failed to achieve all its objectives, including stopping people smuggling'.
Simakoloyi noted that countering China in African trade and mineral access was a hallmark of US foreign policy in Africa, as evidenced by the Lobito Corridor carrying minerals from Zambia and the DRC to be exported from Angola. He suggested Senegal's President Faye could serve the US as a diplomatic bridge to the Sahel's juntas, as Senegal had established a rapport with Mali and Burkina Faso's military governments.
Trump's shift from aid to trade and investment in Africa is in principle a good idea, though the abrupt termination of aid has caused significant distress on the continent. (Unconfirmed reports this week suggest that Pepfar – the US programme against HIV/Aids — may be reinstated.)
But how the US trades and invests in Africa will be critical. As Gabon's Nguema told Trump: 'We also want our raw materials to be processed locally in our country so that we can create value and to create jobs for youth so that they stop dying. They are crossing the sea, the ocean to go to other countries.'
That would be a more constructive and ethical approach to relations than outsourcing the asylum process and dumping criminals from other countries onto Africa. DM
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Citizen
5 minutes ago
- The Citizen
‘Open our eyes and ears' – Ramaphosa on how to tackle US tariff hike on SA cars
In response to the incoming US tariffs, Ramaphosa said South Africa needs to look at other markets. South Africa will feel the wrath of the Trump administration as it stands firm on implementing the 30% tariff on exports to the United States (US). Other countries will also be affected by President Donald Trump's decision, as their export tariffs are increasing as well. In South Africa, the automotive sector will be significantly impacted, as some brands, such as Mercedes-Benz, export to the US. President Cyril Ramaphosa, speaking at the BMW plant in Rosslyn, Pretoria, on Thursday, highlighted that the automotive industry has a significant impact on the country's GDP, as it contributes 4.9%. ALSO READ: US tariff of 30% on SA exports: where to now? Ramaphosa on US tariffs BMW Group SA hosted an engagement to highlight its commitment to strengthening South Africa's economic vitality and advancing its industrial innovation. 'The tariffs from the US have turned the world upside down and are a huge threat to us as well because we export a lot of products to the US, such as vehicles, agricultural products and mineral products,' said Ramaphosa. During his keynote address, he added that SA is the 22nd largest car exporter in the world. Ramaphosa added that the US market is important to SA; however, it is time to diversify the country's export base and accelerate domestic value creation. 'As we face this threat of higher tariffs, we need to open our eyes and ears and see where else our vehicles can go.' SA government engaging on US tariffs Ramaphosa added that producers of some industries have already felt the pressure of the incoming US tariffs. He said the South African government is engaging with the US, and he hopes this will yield success in the coming days. 'We need to look at other markets, and being an African country, with an African continental free-trade, we have got to see how we open up the rest of the continent, because we have a very positive tariff-free opportunity with the rest.' He applauded BMW for exporting the new X3 to Europe. He said that exporting cars to other countries demonstrates trust in the skills South Africans possess and highlights the industry's potential. ALSO READ: Devastating impact of US tariffs on SA automotive sector even before implementation BMW Group South Africa invited President @CyrilRamaphosa to a showcase of the successful implementation of the latest investment for production of the new BMW X3 Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle at the automaker's plant at Rosslyn in Tshwane. — The Presidency 🇿🇦 (@PresidencyZA) July 24, 2025 BMW not affected by tariffs Danny Bester, BWM plant director, told The Citizen that they are not affected by the US tariffs, as they are not currently exporting to the country. 'Right now, we are not affected by the US tariffs because most of our volumes are going to other parts of the world, like Europe, Australia and New Zealand.' He added that they would like to have access to the American market. However, they have sent 16% of the current generation to the US. When asked if they will be looking into expanding in the future, Bester said BMW is aiming to build a new record volume by the end of the year. NOW READ: Mercedes-Benz halts production in Eastern Cape – Will employees be paid?
IOL News
35 minutes ago
- IOL News
Should we criminalise 'Coloured' like the K-word? The answer is complicated
Founder and Leader of PARC, Glen Snyman. Image: Supplied A poster created by the People Against Race Classification (PARC) created quite a stir on social media when it boldly stated, 'Criminalise the word Coloured, just like the K-word'. The PARC's poster has a fiery debate, with some feeling opposite, and saying that while the history of the term is ingrained with trauma, removing the word doesn't go on to address the real systemic issues facing Coloured people. In June, when speaking to the Director at the Centre for Education Rights and Transformation from the University of Johannesburg, Professor June Bam-Hutchison explained that the term 'Coloured' is problematic as it was part of the de-Africanisation process under colonialism, and a dehumanising process under apartheid. ''Coloured' identity is deeply problematic as founded in colonialism and apartheid. Identities are fluid and diverse, and constructed. An adoption of Khoi-San or hybrid ethnic identities within an inclusive South African and African identity is more preferred in existing and contemporary social movements, although there are different articulations. 'It is more about acknowledgement of genocide, and the historical intersecting specificities in oppression that occurred within the early Cape colony (land dispossession, genocide, enslavement). South Africa has not reckoned with these aspects of our painful shared past – yet this history makes up roughly 200 years of our colonial history,' Bam-Hutchison said. The Pan South African Language Board (PanSALB), the authority on language development in the country, said it acknowledges the concerns raised regarding the use of the term 'Coloured' and the complex historical and social implications associated with it. 'As an organisation mandated to promote and develop languages and foster linguistic diversity, PanSALB recognises the sensitivity of this matter. However, given the ongoing debate and lack of consensus among communities, as well as the legal nature of the question surrounding criminalisation, PanSALB is not in a position to provide an authoritative comment on this issue at this stage,' it said. 'We encourage continued dialogue and engagement among all stakeholders to address these concerns in a manner that promotes mutual respect and understanding.' Founder and Leader of PARC, Glen Snyman, said that in their 15-year history, they have always been against race classification, and the reason behind their campaign to criminalise the word Coloured is that when looking at the history of the word, it shows how damaging it is. 'This word, its history, is as damaged, as distorted, as degrading, as the K-word. We have enough proof, which will cause us to have a successful case in a court of law. We want to have this word criminalised as hate speech. And the reason for that is to encourage and subtly force people to stop the use of the word Coloured... 'We would rather want people to say, use the word bruin mense/brown people,' Snyman said. A poster created by the People Against Race Classification (PARC) created quite a stir on social media when it boldly stated, 'Criminalise the word Coloured, just as like the K-Word'. Image: Supplied 'We want it to be made a crime to call people by that, and it's an educational process. People need to be educated to change the way they talk about other people. When was South Africa educated about the K-word? When did that happen? I don't recall such a time in history. 'Now people know how negative the apartheid government spoke to them about the Coloured word. Marike de Klerk (ex-wife of former South African president FW de Klerk) said they are leftovers, that they are dependent on the white people, and that they are made in the kitchen. That's common knowledge to everyone. To me, the only way to force South Africans to stop this is to make a law. We need to have a law. A law must be made to stop them from using the word,' Snyman said. When asked about decolonisation of the term (the process of freeing an institution, sphere of activity, from the cultural or social effects of colonisation), Snyman said: 'You need to explain to me what the definition of decolonisation, because when I say I'm proudly a K*ff*r, or a H*tkn*t, or I call somebody else a K*ff*r, that would put me in jail. That's a crime. We want the same treatment with the word Coloured. 'Why, after 1994, why did the millions of what they call 'Black People' only criminalise their word, the K-word? Which is an insult to them. What about the three million or so brown people? Why didn't they criminalise the word Coloured as well? 'We feel that 'white people' and 'black people' don't have a say in this because they don't know how it feels to be called Coloured. It's degrading to feel Coloured. Plus, it disguises our true name. We want to be called Khoi-San,' he said. 'COLOURED - How Classification Became Culture' co-author Tessa Dooms, who wrote with Lynsey Ebony Chute, hit back at Snyman's position. In the book, the two challenge the notion that Coloured people do not have a distinct heritage or culture, and delve into the history of Coloured people as descendants of indigenous Africans and as a people whose identity has been shaped by colonisation and slavery, and unpack the racial and political hierarchies these forces created. 'To respond directly to his assertion that compares the word Coloured to the K-word, I reject that outright, and the reason I reject it outright is this. There were demeaning ways to call Coloured people that are equivalent to the K-word. That was never the word 'Coloured'. 'Let's be serious. There was B*esman (Bushman), and there were other derogatory ways to refer to us that are akin to the K-word. That is not the word 'Coloured'. That is like saying that the word Xhosa or Zulu is derogatory. It simply is not. 'The closest equivalence, because it was on the same classification sheet during apartheid, is the word native. If you want to compare it to native, I don't have a problem. 'But to compare it to the K-word is a hyperbolic falsehood for effect. And it's simply unhelpful,' Dooms said. 'If you want to change the classifications or do away with them, then you don't start by doing away with them. You start by doing the work to undo their meaning in people's real lives. 'For as long as being white means a certain life is ascribed to you, and you can attain certain things that other people can't, we must continue to use the word White to point out that privilege. For as long as the word black means that you're going to have certain levels of discrimination, we must continue to use the word black. Co-author of 'COLOURED - How Classification Became Culture' Tessa Dooms. Image: Facebook / Supplied 'In the same way, as long as the word Coloured denotes this kind of marginality from society, we continue to use the word because the word Coloured is also helping us to point out that those things that made that word exist in the first place can exist now. 'People want shortcuts in democracy and transformation. We want to get rid of the words, but not get rid of the systems, and so until we get rid of the systems, we have no business just getting rid of the words,' Dooms said. In conversation with Dooms, it was also highlighted that the terms Snyman seeks to use in its stead, 'Khoi-San' and 'brown people', don't fit what some people understand their heritage to be, and could cause further confusion. Taking to social media for people's thoughts on the matter, this is what others had to say: Tamlyn Hendricks: 'Although there is a lot of sordid history around being coloured. We already have a word that's offensive to us. I have always felt that we, as coloured people, have taken on the word with pride and are trying very hard to uncover our vast and extensive history around it. It doesn't offend, nor do I think it should be criminalised. I do think that more conversations around this need to be had, though, and more information should be uncovered and made available for people to try and learn.' Ashly Schoeman: 'I personally don't find the term offensive at all. I'm proud of my family and heritage; however, if I'm being honest, I don't really care much how race is classified, especially not the name/label. Call me what you want, my heritage and culture will stay the same. 'I've always thought that fitting someone into a racial box and then further dividing them into different types of coloured people, for example, causes more harm than good, creating a rift between people of the same race. Colourism is a bigger issue, in my opinion. I don't imagine changing a name will solve any of these problems. 'Painting the house a different colour without addressing issues with the foundation is a waste of time.' [email protected]
IOL News
2 hours ago
- IOL News
President Cyril Ramaphosa missing in action amid US tariffs
South Africa's silence on how it plans to respond to President Donald Trump's looming tariffs next months is leaving the door wide open for justified criticism that it is less bothered about the impact, says the writer. Image: Jairus Mmutle / GCIS IT WOULD take something special for the South African government to get itself out of the US's 30% tariffs on exported products judging by how the Government of National Unity (GNU) has approached this issue. Make no mistake, Trump means business and it will take some convincing for his administration to move away from the percentage he has imposed on our produce to the US. Certainly that will not happen when our government continues to evade questions about the appointment of an ambassador to the US. The Ramaphosa administration is leaving the door wide open for justified criticism that it is less bothered about the impact the tariffs will have on automotive and agricultural sectors - key industries in the country's economy. Other than a July 7 statement contesting the interpretation of the balance of trade between South Africa and the US, South Africans have been kept in the dark about how far the 'negotiating teams' have gone insofar as securing a deal is concerned. This is not to suggest that the Americans should dictate the speed at which we address our own internal issues, far from it. However the lack of direction and certainty presents a worrying picture. A picture depicting that the government's house is not in order and no one appears concerned. For example, the role of Mcebisi Jonas, the president's special envoy to the US, continues to be shrouded in controversy. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading If we were to take the DA's word for it, Jonas is not a welcome guest to the US over his past remarks labelling Trump a racist. Ramaphosa's continued refusal to come clean on Jonas' status is not helping the situation. South Africa has been without an ambassador to the US since Ebrahim Rasool was chased away in March for criticising Trump. Who are we entrusting with this very important responsibility? Could this nonchalant approach be a sign that the South African government has already accepted that it will not be able to strike a deal with the US? If so, then what is the alternative? These are crucial questions that will not disappear by avoiding to answer. Hard to believe that today we are having to dig for answers from a president who promised a government characterised by transparency.
