2024 US Election

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's victory in the November 5 elections met a mixed reaction across the African continent, with some critics going so far as to deny democracy in the United States and portraying the nation as a predatory colonial state.

One such example is a highly misleading statement by South Africa's far-left populist opposition Economic Freedom Fighters party (EFF), published on the social media platform X on November 6.

The EFF, South Africa's third-largest political party, is founded and led by controversial figure and social media influencer Julius Malema, known for his radically divisive rhetoric. Malema is occasionally accused of hate speech and corruption, among other assertions, all of which he denies as politically motivated.

In a two-page paper titled EFF's Statement on the Outcome of U.S. Presidential Elections, the party claimed "indifference" to the winner, but went on to portray the U.S. politics as the "worst kind" and "imperial" by nature.

Besides repeating a disputed theory that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency directed the 1961 assassination of Congolese Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba, the statement said the U.S. stands behind the current fighting in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where 100 rebel groups are fighting for control over natural resources.

The hostilities in Congo have already led to the displacement of more than 7.2 million people, according to U.N. statistics.

Congo is rich in gold, copper and cobalt – a key metal in producing electric vehicles.

"They [the U.S.] are now direct beneficiaries of instability in Congo, looting the natural resources to benefit their companies and their allies,'' the EFF said.

That is misleading.

The United States exports copper, cacao and diamonds directly from Congo and via third countries, according to the State Department. Copper accounts for 50% of the trade between the two nations. U.S.

However, the U.S. takes measures to prevent any illicitly mined minerals from entering the American markets via third countries.

There is enough evidence that instead of profiteering from conflict in Congo, the United States has repeatedly condemned violence in the East African nation and has sanctioned militia groups and individuals involved in illegal mining.

The U.S. also criminalized trading in minerals stolen from war-torn nations.

In July 2010, the U.S. Congress passed into law the Dodd Frank Act, Section 1502, which requires all U.S. publicly listed companies to do due diligence on their supply chains of minerals that might originate from Congo and report their findings to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Congolese government systematically accuses neighboring Rwanda and Uganda of illegally mining its resources by colluding with the rebels.

This past May, Congolese Mines Minister Antoinette N'Samba Kalambayi accused Rwanda of using M23 rebels to steal its natural resources. M23 is a militant group sanctioned by the U.N. and U.S. for human rights abuses. It broke away from the Congolese army a decade ago and is reportedly dominated by the ethnic Tutsi fighters originating in Rwanda.

That same month, the Congolese justice minister, Rose Mutombo, filed a case against Rwanda at the International Criminal Court, accusing Kigali of using the M23 rebels to steal its natural resources.

In 2023, the Financial Times cited the Congolese government as claiming to lose $1 billion worth of minerals annually to Rwanda, which exports "$1bn in gold, tin, tantalum and tungsten, even though the country has few mineral deposits of its own."

Most recently, on July 8, the U.S. State Department accused Rwanda and Uganda of financing the conflict in Congo by facilitating the movements of stolen natural resources by armed groups, ''including artisanally and semi-industrially mined gold and tantalum.''

The State Department stated that "in many cases, these minerals directly or indirectly benefit armed groups and move out of the country through Rwanda and to Uganda before moving to major refining and processing countries."

The United Nations has repeatedly highlighted in its reports that "ample evidence indicates that Rwanda and Uganda were financing their military expenditure with the profits from natural resources exploitation in DRC."

America's allies in Europe are debating what Donald Trump's win in Tuesday's U.S. presidential election could mean for their security and prosperity amid concerns that the next four years may once again be characterized by a turbulent transatlantic alliance.

European interests

About 50 European leaders met in Budapest on Thursday for a summit of the European Political Community, which was set up in 2022 in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

French President Emmanuel Macron said Europe must stand up for itself as it prepares for the next Trump presidency in the United States.

"There is a geopolitical situation where it is clear that we have two blocs: the United States of America on one side and China on the other, which above all seek their own interests," Macron told the other European leaders.

"I think that our role here in the European Union is not to comment on the election of Donald Trump, to wonder if it is good or not. He was elected by the American people, and he is going to defend the interests of American people and that is legitimate and that is a good thing,” he said.

"The question is, are we ready to defend the interests of Europeans? That is the only question that we should ask ourselves. And for me, I think that is our priority," he said.

NATO

The NATO alliance remains the bedrock of Europe's security.

"The first implication for the alliance is how to continue support for Ukraine if there's an expected drawdown of military assistance from the U.S.," said Ed Arnold, senior research fellow for European security at Britain's Royal United Services Institute.

"That can either be delivered through NATO — and there were some steps taken in this summer to sort of formalize those structures — but still significantly less than where it needs to be. It can also be done through the EU as well, which might increase slightly but probably not enough. Or it can be done bilaterally," Arnold told VOA.

"I think actually the mechanisms are probably largely irrelevant. It's more about the cost to individual nations, and that's going to have to ramp up pretty quickly if they're going to be able to have that impact," he said.

Shortfall

Does Europe have the capacity to make up any shortfall from a U.S. withdrawal of support for Kyiv?

"Yes, but it would take a lot more effort than Europe is making now," according to analyst Ian Bond of the Center for European Reform. "And I think there will be some, perhaps in Germany, perhaps elsewhere, who will say the Ukrainians are just going to have to put up with losing some of their territory.

"I think for the Baltic states, for the Nordic states, Poland — they will look at this and they will say, 'Russia is going to be an existential threat to us if it is allowed to control Ukraine. And therefore we must step up our efforts,'" Bond said.

On the campaign trail, Trump said he would end the Russia-Ukraine war on day one, although he didn't elaborate on how that would be achieved. In the past he has boasted of a good relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Peace deal?

Ukraine fears being forced into an unfavorable peace deal — and Europeans might change their calculations, said analyst Arnold of RUSI.

"There might be a bit of a worry where there's some within Europe who say, "Why would we ramp up aid now if there's going to be a negotiated settlement fairly soon? And I think the real risk for Europe as a whole — the EU but also NATO — is that actually the U.S. and Russia might start to do these negotiations without them," Arnold said.

SEE ALSO:

With uncertainty across the Atlantic, Europe worries about its own security

Leverage

There are deeper concerns that the U.S. might withdraw wider support for European security. Former government officials say Trump considered pulling the U.S. out of NATO altogether in his first term.

"One of the very few consistent beliefs that Trump has held to since he entered politics has been the idea that the United States is being taken advantage of by its allies," said Jonathan Monten, a U.S. foreign policy analyst at University College London.

"At times, Trump threatened to withdraw from the alliance altogether but was ultimately held back. So the million-dollar question … is whether or not he will actually act on that threat," Monten told VOA.

"I think he likes the idea that he's keeping foreign allies as well as adversaries guessing as to his ultimate intentions. I think he sees that as a source of leverage, as a source of power," he said.

NATO's secretary general, Mark Rutte, who took over the role October 1, has struck a more upbeat tone, praising Trump for getting allies to spend more on defense.

"When he was president, he was the one in NATO who stimulated us to move over the 2% [of GDP spending target]," Rutte told reporters in Budapest on Thursday.

Tariffs

It's not only security fears that are haunting European capitals. America's allies could also face economic turbulence when Trump enters the White House.

"The [Trump] claims of putting about 60% or more tariffs on all imports from China will have to have a major disruptive impact on world trade, and there will be repercussions on the EU, on Europe, on the U.K. and elsewhere. We can expect also tariffs on imports from the EU as well," said Garret Martin, co-director of the Transatlantic Policy Center at American University in Washington.

"One element that I think is going to be absolutely critical for Europe, for the EU, is to work on protecting its unity and its unanimity. Trump, I think, is likely to try to adopt a divide and rule approach," Martin said.

Unpredictability

Trump's unpredictability means there is little Europe’s leaders can do to prepare, said Monten.

"They can try flattery,” he said. “They can try to offer him deals that benefit him personally, but it's unclear what exactly they would have to offer. They can offer him the kind of stature or respect that comes along with a big grand summit or trade deal. He seems to crave that kind of respect.

"But when it comes to actual tangible concrete results, it is unclear what levers they have either to threaten him with or to cajole him with," Monten told VOA.