In a precedent-setting moment shrouded in controversy, Joe Biden has become the first US president to visit Angola, kick-starting negotiations with his counterpart João Lourenço. While Biden is boasting about this seemingly historic achievement, critics are questioning the potential security repercussions and trade implications of this event. Why Angola, one might wonder, considering its complex geopolitical alliances and its coziness with mainstream U.S. rivals like China and Russia.
In the ostentatious milieu of Luanda’s presidential palace, the talks, we’ve been told, are centered around strengthening security and promoting trade partnerships. Meanwhile, there’s a 1,300km railway project, which will connect Angola’s port to the mining hubs within the Democratic Republic of Congo and Zambia. A project vehemently backed by the U.S. government. Is anyone seeing red flags yet? Countries use these leverages to secure geopolitical advantages, after all.
This visit was supposed to signal an intensified American focus on Africa, promoting trade and investments, undoubtedly conceived as a move to counter China’s evident influence. So, is it a genuine interest in African prosperity, or just another chapter of territorial game-playing, jostling for control in strategic locations? An average viewer would, justifiably, have a tough time swallowing the former.
Lourenço was quick to moniker this visit as a ‘turning point’ in US-Angola relations, a bold claim considering the chequered history and the subtle power-play on display. It seems more like a spectacle put on for the world rather than a grounded policy advancement. Biden, in his characteristically lofty rhetoric, shares how proud he is of their transformed partnership – statements one may easily dismiss as pure diplomatic fluff.
Since freeing itself from Portuguese colonial rule in 1975, Angola has seen influence from Eastern powerhouses like China and Russia. However, under Lourenço’s reign beginning 2017, an evident pivot towards the United States has been noticeable. But why this pivot now? And why is the Biden administration responding to this pivot, especially when it seems to be more for optics, less for policy? Nevertheless, Biden is set to visit a slavery museum during this trip.
Over four million people were tragically uprooted from this region during the despicable era of slavery. ‘Together, the United States and Angola acknowledge the past horrors of slavery and its legacy, while looking forward to a bright future of continually deepening collaboration between our nations,’ the White House said in a rather boilerplate statement. Of course, one must validate these sentiments with observable actions.
This selection of Angola by Biden is telling more for its symbol, than its real significance. This visit is seen as a milestone by many, indicating improved relations between the two nations. However, some dissenting voices argue whether this is a mistaken strategy. Initiatives such as this, that seem more performative than substantive, cause critics to question their fundamental value and purpose.
Lourenço expressed optimism that future administrations would continue with these initiatives, phrasing it rather cryptically, ‘Powers come and go, so, all we need to do is to be ready to work with those who will be in power.’ Despite the unclear implications of this statement, it does put forth an interesting belief about international politics – one that might resonate with skeptics of the Biden-Lourenço rendezvous.
Intriguingly, the Lobito Corridor is a joint venture among three African countries, the United States, other G7 powers, and private investors. However, Lourenço’s dismissal of concerns that this initiative could mirror colonial exploitation of Africa’s resources seems all too convenient. Today’s global powers require access to Africa’s minerals in particular and this project presents a new-age gateway for economic exploitation under a veiled guise.
Contrary to the positive spin, many believe that this project provides a wide-open channel for violation of future consent and sovereignty of Africa, rather than the protection Lourenço promises. Putting faith in vague assurances about the project benefiting African countries seems somewhat naive. Concurrently, critics have questioned whether the US will be able to compete with China, whose strong vested interests are at play in the continent.
However, we are told that the venture is beneficial for Western as well as Chinese firms. It supposedly allows them to use the infrastructure whilst competing for influence. Critics argue this situation has the potential to undermine US foreign strategy by making its infrastructure available to adversaries, thereby putting at risk American interests.
Angola, with its vast mineral resources, accounts for about 63% of the global mineral supply. The hope that African nations will gradually develop industrially doesn’t seem entirely based on ground reality. Critics point out that this development would take considerable time and strategic investment and note that the US is primarily interested in the raw export of these minerals.
Post the devastating civil war that only ended in 2002, Angola has been rebuilding its infrastructure. The once vibrant colonial-era Benguela railway line which, after being destroyed and reduced to a mere 3% functionality, is now being revived. But the dominant narrative about this revival seems to be originating from a superficial perspective that glosses over deeper challenges.
First to invest in Angola’s infrastructure after the civil war, China continues to play a consequential role in Angola’s recovery. Yet, we are expected to believe the US’s sudden interest in the once-ruined Benguela railway line is purely altruistic. Competing against China takes precedence, it seems, over developing substantive, beneficial policies for the countries involved.
Biden’s visit, coupled with the investment in Lobito Corridor, has been hailed as a significant boost for Angola’s striving image change. However, critics argue that such a swift complexion change may be premature. Only time will expose the authenticity of these ostensibly renewed relations and their true implications for Angola and Africa at large.