United States’ New Colonization versus Africa’s Strategic Autonomy in Disunity: What Future?

By Bola A. Akinterinwa

            Colonisation, in its classical sense, now belongs to the garbage of history but it is being re-clothed with technology and show of power by the United States. The Israelo-American war on Iran clearly illustrates this point. President Donald Trump is telling the whole world that America is not simply the policeman of the world but also that America has more determinedly come to govern the world on the basis of ‘America First’ and ‘Make America Great Again.’  This policy of ‘America First’ and ‘Make America Great Again’ unnecessarily makes the rest of the world secondary in all U.S. strategic calculations. The U.S. is also recolonizing the world with the use of sophisticated modern technology as shown by the 2026 Israelo-American war on Iran.

            The United States’ new colonization is manifested by manu militari. It is transactional in character and does not allow for foreign competition with the United States. Any resistance to the U.S. policy is jettisoned by coercion. For example, President Donald Trump did not approve the issuance of U.S. visa to the award-winning Somali referee, Omar Abdulkadir Artan, and thus preventing him to officiate in the 2026 World Cup. The Palestinian Football Association president, Jibril Rajoub, suffered the same fate. In fact, the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, and other 80 Palestinian officials, were denied visa to attend the UNGA under the pretext of national security. Whereas the United Nations in New York, as an Assembly of international diplomatic missions, has the status of extraterritoriality.

And true enough, the U.S. wants to reassert its political mainmise on the world, but the Chinese are resisting it and preparing strenuously to replace the U.S. as the new global leader. The U.S. policy of ‘America First’ and ‘Make America Great Again’ is vehemently opposed to this. In the same vein, and more importantly, Africa does not want re-colonisation but it is not in the position to avoid recolonization by high technology. Africa is only promoting the quest for strategic autonomy in various ramifications. Thus, the world is witnessing U.S recolonization attempts and Africa’s resistance through the promotion of strategic autonomy.

Manifestations of U.S. Neo-Colonisation

The first manifestation of U.S. neo-colonisation is expressed in the very person of Donald Trump as President of the United States. He sees the goodness and greatness of the United States through himself. What America should be is as understood, seen, and defined by him. In the eyes of Donald Trump, even though his popularity rating has declined to only 36%, the Joe Biden administration was a ‘total disaster’ in his eyes. With the re-election of Donald Trump, ‘America is back’ and is ‘in the golden age.’ Trump has said that he had rescued a ‘dead country,’ the United States, in less than two years (edition.cnn.com).

If the United States was dead and has now been resuscitated by Donald Trump, what should we mean by the resurrection of the United States in international politics? We contend here that it is simply recolonization in a new form, which is about foreign policy by coercion and use of threats of manu militari. It is about the removal of security threats in the United States to money-induced willing African countries that accept what is unwanted in America. It is about the disregard for international law, particularly in the area of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of other sovereign states. More interestingly, it is about making policy declarations of braggadocio to threaten less powerful countries.

Let us, for example, look at the U.S.-Kenyan relationship in which Donald Trump wants to use Kenya as an instrument of U.S foreign policy projection. Last week, Kenya played host to serious political tension and heightened spread of Ebola outbreak. The politics of the spread is more problematic than the impact of the spread because the Kenyan government had to suspend the construction of a US-supported Ebola facility as a result of a local backlash. Put differently, Kenyans are saying that their country is not ‘an American colony.’ They therefore vehemently rejected the location in their country of the U.S.-funded isolation ward for Americans exposed to Ebola abroad.

The opposition to the U.S.-supported Ebola facility is understandable from the perspective that the outbreak of Ebola is about 1,500 miles away and bringing the Americans from far away Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) or from neigbouring Uganda can lead to importation of Ebola to Kenya. The issue to address here is why the choice of Kenya? Why the opposition? Is Kenya no more the new replacement for the Francophone West African countries that have declared opposition to neo-colonialism and France unwanted in their countries? Why is Donald Trump seeking a special protection for Americans in another country rather than making all the Americans abroad to come together in the DRC to combat the pandemic? Are the people in the DRC not also qualified to be specially protected in the country? Is it not possibly because of the U.S. perception of the incapability of the DRC to effectively contain the spread of Ebola that efforts are being made to provide a special facility in Kenya? Is it not also possibly because the U.S. is foreseeing that there will not be an immediate end to epidemics and pandemics in Africa that a special hub is being contemplated for general use?

Most unfortunately, the Kenyan president, William Ruto, might have considered the fact of Kenya’s $1.6 billion health deal with the United States in setting aside a Kenyan court order to stop the construction of the isolation ward for Americans exposed to Ebola in the DRC. In this regard, we believe that Africa’s problem is here evident: The United States is engaging in a new form of recolonization and Africa is being made the first testing-epicenter of the agenda. Whatever is unwanted in Europe and America, Africa is persuaded and corrupted to accept it. From Rwanda, through Eswatini, to Sudan, unwanted convicted criminals in Europe and America are spreading in Africa in exchange for hard currency. Unbelievable but true: it is an exchange of money not for industrialization, but for maintaining the convicts, and by so doing, enabling financial public corruption and embezzlement by leaders.

What makes the United States that is not on record to be a classical colonialist think it is fit to be a new philosopher king in Kenya? Why will any reasonable African leader reject a court order in order to satisfy the needs of a foreign country and not the interest of his own people? Europeans underscore the protection of their own interests to the detriment of other foreign interests. But Africans cannot be said to have understood their own problems, not to say underscoring their own interests. After all, it was even a Kenyan academic, James Ngũgĩ, who told us in his Weep Not Child published in 1964 that a White man is always a White man but a Black man is never a Black man. He rejected his name, James, and began to answer Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o in order to show the beauty of his African personality. He changed from writing his novels in English language to writing them in his native Gikuyu language. This was a good manifestation of self-decolonization by example.

Most unfortunately, however, President Ruto appears to have now presented himself as a promoter of United States’ new policy and instrument of recolonization. For instance, while a French doctor, who reportedly was infected by Ebola while treating Ebola patients in the DRC, had to return to France, his home country, the United States opted to transfer Americans yet to be affected by the pandemic in the DRC to Kenya, and not to the United States. What prevents the Americans that have been exposed to Ebola not flown to the United States where very sophisticated healthcare system exists? This is a reflection of imperialistic tendency.

Secondly, aggression is another instrument of U.S. attempt at recolonization in global politics. U.S. aggression in Venezuela and Iran is a good illustration of this observation. It is on record that, in an attempt to contain the influence of China in Venezuela, as well as control its vast oil reserves that have been internationally proven to be the largest in the world, President Donald Trump aggressed Venezuela in January 2026. The abduction by use of military force of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, allegedly for controversial drug purposes, cannot be justified under international law, except in the case of self-defence. In fact, the self-defence must be in response to an initial military aggression, which was not the case in the context of Venezuela.

Iran was also a victim of American aggression from 28 February 2026 through 17 June 2026 during which Iranian nuclear sites, government officials and leading physicists were bombed and killed in US-Israeli airstrikes. Iran was not the first aggressor. The United States and Israel were the first attackers. They started the war, the battles have been suspended, but there is no certainty about how the war could be permanently ended because of America First policy.     

Sudan is fraught with humanitarian crisis. What future? The unwanted Afrophobia in South Africa continues to generate more debates and disunity in the country. The Government of South Africa is not on the same page with the people of South Africa who want all immigrant foreigners to leave their country, a situation that has prompted many countries like Ghana, Nigeria, Malawi and Mozambique to evacuate their citizens. How do we reconcile African leaders’ sermons of continental integration and unity, on the one hand, and aiding and abetting disunity, on the other hand? Government is unable to make South African citizens stop their xenophobic and particularly Afrophobic tendencies. This inability only facilitates recolonization of Africa by whoever is interested to do so. However, some radicalizing countries are currently showing more concerns about the need to liberate Africa from every jot of neo-colonial and imperialistic oppression.

Africa’s Strategic Autonomy in Disunity

            A current illustration of the quest for strategic autonomy in Africa is the issue of Starlink, the world’s most advanced international satellite-technology company, in Namibia. The Communications Regulatory Authority of Namibia (CRAN) has refused to license the Starlink, which is an American international communications company, to operate legally in Namibia. This is because the law regulating communications business clearly stipulates that any international company or multinational corporation that wants to operate in Namibia must accept only 49% equity participation while Namibians must have the rest, 51%. Starlink is American owned, consequently, it is an international company and, therefore, cannot be allowed to operate on the basis of 100% equity share.

When the Starlink attempted in March 2026 to appeal against the rejection of its application for license, the CRAN denied the various appeals by the Starlink, especially because the Starlink did not file a reconsideration appeal within the stipulated time. Even if the Starlink had filed its reconsideration appeal within the time required, there was nothing to suggest that the appeal would have been accepted because of the existing law. And perhaps most importantly, there is the fear of Namibia that its national security cannot but be threatened as a result of the possible centralization of strategic telecommunications infrastructure located outside of Namibia.

Put differently and interrogatively, who is going to control the data collected from Namibia if it is not Elon Musk? Will it not be the same Elon Musk who was born in South Africa and seen as a man with an apartheid mentality? He is also seen as a close friend of Donald Trump. When will Starlink not be used against Namibian interest if the national interest of the United States is at stake? Big telecommunications companies, like the MTC, are all complying with the Namibian regulation. Why should that of Starlink be different if it is not for a new hegemonic and imperialistic agenda?

Whatever is the case, Starlink has become an instrument of threats to national disunity in Namibia because the Starlink provides a high-speed satellite internet in which Namibians are most interested. The Namibian government, on the contrary, is most interested not only in creating more jobs for Namibians, but also in particularly protecting national sovereignty and avoiding national security implications. This is why the Namibian government has rejected the 624 appeals challenging the non-licensing of Starlink. Comparatively, while President Ruto of Kenya is pro-America to the detriment of Kenya, Namibians are re-affirming their beauty as Africanist Namibians. They are underscoring the protection of their national interest and trying to address the implications of Starlink’s possible insecurity linkages in the foreseeable future. Even if the Starlink were to agree to the requirement of only 49% equity share, Namibia is not likely to be able to still prevent the use of data collected from Namibians to the advantage of the U.S. as wanted by Elon Musk. This is why Africa needs to sit down and engage in more critical thinking regarding its future.

Second is the politics of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC was founded in 2002 under the multilateral Rome Statute to investigate, and if need be, to prosecute the gravest crimes of concern, such as international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression. More importantly, the ICC is not simply an international tribunal, but also an intergovernmental organization.

In this regard, the United States is not a member of the ICC primarily because of the non-preparedness of the U.S. to subject any American military personnel and government to trial by any supra-American or supranational authority. Arguments of the need to protect national sovereignty and fear of possible politically-motivated prosecutions are the main rationales for non-membership of the ICC. Put differently, the Washingtonian government believes that the submission to an international court when there is no consent to that effect is necessarily a violation of U.S. national sovereignty.

But true, the U.S. took active part in the negotiations that led to the signing of the Rome Statute. President Bill Clinton reluctantly signed the Statute in 2000 but the Bush administration unsigned it in 2002, following the promulgation of the American Service-Members’ Protection Act (ASPA) passed by Congress in 2002 and referred to as the ‘Hague Invasion Act.’ The Act prohibits U.S. cooperation with the ICC and authorizes the President to ensure the release of any U.S. or allied personnel held by the ICC.

Most unfortunately, however, the U.S. has not only been sanctioning and imposing travel restrictions on ICC officials who have attempted to investigate suspected crimes committed by U.S. soldiers or committed by the allies of the U.S. In the same vein, Israel, Sudan, and the Russian Federation signed the Statute in 2000, but Israel unsigned it in 2002, while Sudan unsigned it in 2008 and Russia unsigned it in 2016.

Interestingly, the U.S. supported the same ICC’s March 2023 declaration of arrest of the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, over his alleged individual criminal responsibility of unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia. Expectedly, Russia ignored the warrant of arrest, issuing its own warrant of arrest on ICC officials in reaction. Like the U.S., Russia is not a Member signatory to the Rome Statute. In all, 41 countries are not party to the Rome Statute, meaning that they are not subject to the obligations by the Statute. This raises the third issue of the Alliance of States of the Sahel.

Thirdly, if not more importantly and disturbingly, the three Member States of the Alliance des États du Sahel, Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger, have announced their withdrawal from the International Criminal Court (ICC), considering that the ICC has become an ‘instrument of neo-colonialist repression.’ Although they had earlier indicated their intention to withdraw nine months ago, Niger officially submitted its instrument of withdrawal from the ICC on June 16, 2026. This means that, with effect from June 18, 2027 the withdrawal cannot but take effect. However, Niger is still pretty bound to comply with the obligations created by the Rome Statute. The obligations in this case cannot but be limited to the arrest and surrender of any person placed on the warrant of arrest. For example, if President Putin travels to any of the Member State of the Sahel. The likelihood again of any of the countries complying is, at best, remote. What is noteworthy about the withdrawal is its consideration as a means of ending ICC as an instrument of imperialism and neo-colonisation. As noted by Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger, they want to establish ‘indigenous mechanisms for the consolidation of peace and justice.’

Fourthly, Burkina Faso broke diplomatic ties with France on Friday, 26 June 2026, allegedly for supporting ‘subversive networks’ and ‘terrorists.’ There is no mutual respect. There is no demonstration of sovereign equality. These are some of the reasons for this mésentente. Without whiff of doubt, the break-up of diplomatic ties is not simply in protest against alleged France’s support for terrorism, but essentially as part of efforts being made to stop recolonization in various ramifications. In fact, the Burkinabé Government introduced last week a new regulation compelling all students intending to go abroad for higher education to first obtain prior clearance from the Ministry of Higher Education in order to bring education in line with the Government’s development priorities. The Government wants an alignment of overseas academic training with national development priorities. This new regulation complements the mandatory ‘patriotic immersion programme’ for new university students.

France, in particular, and the United States and other European countries, in general, are the countries to which the Burkinabé often go to for higher education. The implication is that approval to go to France or to the United States cannot but now be subjected to rigorous checks. With deterioration of ties with France, Burkinbé students cannot be expected to have ready approvals to go for higher education in France.

This cannot but be so because Russian influence has replaced Franco-American influence in Burkina Faso, as well as in Mali and Niger. As the United States wants to be the most senior king in Africa and Africans are also showing non-preparedness to accept, what should be the way forward? Can any meaningful resistance be undertaken with a house divided against itself? Even within a country, Kenya, there is disagreement. Can there be any good future with an Africa divided against itself, and with the Kenyan Government consciously and ignorantly sustaining dependency to the detriment of the yearnings of Kenyan people?

QUOTE:

As shown above, President Donald Trump wants to control the whole world by manu militari. He wants to make Kenya a regional hub for disease containment but Kenyans are vehemently opposed to it. President Ruto of Kenya, probably because of President Trump’s determination to provide about $800 million in emergency funds for an Ebola quarantine facility in Kenya, is not fully complying with a Kenyan court order to stop the project. He has been ignoring popular protests against Kenya hosting it. Unfortunately, the United States bothers less about the concerns of Kenyans. The U.S. is mostly concerned about the need for Kenya to play host to the regional and global Ebola containment efforts. And true, before the presidency of Donald Trump, democracy was defined by freedom. Today, under Donald Trump when the U.S is celebrating 250 years of its existence, democracy is being defined, not by freedom, but by imperialistic dictatorship. Europeans and Americans are preaching democracy to Africa but they do not believe in it anymore. If they do, why did they support a military take-over in Chad when Idris Derby died? They rejected democracy because Idris Derby was considered ‘a reliable friend’ of the West. Imagine the hypocrisy. They are never interested in sovereign equality, a basic principle of international law. Africa wants the reform of the United Nations but the P-5 of the UN Security Council have not shown any interest by making Articles 108 and 109 of the UN Charter unworkable. Again, why should Donald Trump be supporting the agitations for independence of White South Africa? Africa is contemplating its own African Criminal Court. Why are the efforts being frustrated? What future is there for Africa with this type of situation?