Will Trump’s isolationism policy enhance peace in Africa?

It is the British historian, Eric Hobsbawm, who described the 20th century as “the age of extremes” (1995). Professor Hobsbawm was referring to the three World Wars of the 20th century: the First (1914-1918); the Second (1939-1945); and the Third widely dubbed as “Cold War”, but which was extremely hot in the theatres of war in Africa, Asia and Latin America (1945-1991).

With the rise of Donald Trump, many fret that the 21st century might become even more violent and insecure.

But even before the maverick President-elect enters the Oval Office, the record of liberal America in promoting peace after 1991 is dismal. Under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama (2000-2016), Washington’s liberals have pursued a form of liberal interventionism to replace real or perceived “illiberal” or “authoritarian” regimes, creating deadlier and complex theatres of war and a less safe world.

Liberal America’s ideological extremism is deeply ingrained in a fine blend of its Christian and liberal traditions. Understanding the reason why America’s policy in the 21st century has destabilised peace in Africa requires a clear grasp of America’s immortalised self- image as the “Shining City on the Hill.”

Paradoxically, liberal America — both Democrat and Republican — has viewed Donald Trump as the anti-thesis of the immortalised belief that the US is “God’s country.”

Before and after Trump, the metaphorical idea of America as the “Shining City upon a Hill,” which derives from Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount (Mathew 5:14), created competing visions of how America should engage the world in the 21st century.

Many American presidents from John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush and Barack Obama have used the image of America as “the light of the world” to convey their vision of America’s world leadership.

However, this image of the “city upon the hill” has thrown up two competing visions of America’s internationalism in the 21st century.

The first vision, “global multilateralism”, identified with Bill Clinton-Al Gore Democrats, extols the virtues of post-War global institutions weaved around the United Nations.

'AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM'

The rival vision, the “American exceptionalism,” linked to the Reagan-Bush Republicans, leaned towards unilateralism in global affairs. After 9/11, the exceptionalist vision took on a militaristic approach defined by a distinct liberal extremist hue. “Like generations before us”, declared George Bush in 2004, “we have a calling from beyond the stars to stand for freedom.”

During the campaigns, President-elect Trump was caught in the competing vision of America’s self-image. In this context, the 2012 Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, used the idiom to condemn Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign tinged with racial and isolationist sentiments.

“His domestic policies would lead to recession; his foreign policies would make America and the world less safe,” said Romney.

“He (Trump) has neither the temperament nor the judgement to be president, and his personal qualities would mean that America would cease to be a shining city on a hill”, he added.

On his part, President Obama invoked the phrase in his speech at the Democratic National Convention to offer a more inclusive and optimistic vision of America than Trump’s.

The battle for the soul of ideological America is likely to intensify after Trump enters office in January 2017. But the big question is whether President-elect Trump’s isolationism will replace America’s liberal extremism to make the world safer.

The image of America as the “shining city on the hill” is likely to define America’s response to Africa under President Trump.

Under George W. Bush and Obama (2000-2016), the idea of America as “a city on the hill” nourished an extremist ideology of “liberal internationalism,” defined as a fundamentalist doctrine in foreign affairs that posits that liberal states should intervene in other sovereign states in order to pursue liberal objectives.

In the 21st century, the doctrine saw liberal America investing heavily in exporting Washington’s vision of “democracy” and “freedom” using a slew of military, humanitarian aid and multilateral strategies.

In Africa, America and its European allies deployed a malign “opposition strategy” to replace regimes perceived as “illiberal” or “authoritarian” with pliable alternatives. Regime-change schemes have complicated Africa’s conflicts, making the continent less safe.

DEMOCRACY DOSE

It was widely agreed that Libya under Muammar Gaddafi needed a dose of democracy — and in 2010, as anti-Gaddafi opposition turned stridently violent, the African Union brokered a deal in which Gaddafi was to pave way for democratic reforms.

But America and their allies had another idea. A NATO military intervention in Libya in March 2011, ostensibly to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, led to Gaddafi’s death. One of Africa’s most stable states descended into cataclysmic violence, becoming a cesspool of all genres of terrorism and violent extremism.

The arc of the moral universe of liberalism may be long, but in Africa it bends not towards justice, but stokes violence and instability, offering no viable alternative to illiberal or authoritarian regimes. In Libya, it left behind neither democracy nor freedom, but its citizens worse off than under Gaddafi.

Clearly, liberal extremism has also become too expensive for the Americans especially in the face of Washington’s failure to protect. A case in point is the 2012 Benghazi incident, where members of the Islamic militant group Ansar al-Sharia killed the US Ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, and senior officer Sean Smith.

More recently, in South Sudan, America was accused of failure to protect its citizens in a theatre of war. “The US Embassy refused to respond to American desperate calls for help, leading to the sexual violence targeting American women,” wrote The Guardian (17/10/2016).

Not surprisingly, during the July attack on the Terrain Hotel in Juba, rogue South Sudanese soldiers made it clear to their victims that Americans were targeted because the Obama administration was hell-bent on replacing the government of President Salva Kirr with that of his rival, former VP Riek Machar.

Trump heralds the end of Liberal America’s “Opposition Strategy,” and hopefully a less interventionist America.

Prof Peter Kagwanja is chief executive, Africa Policy Institute.