Outgoing U.S. President Joe Biden visited oil-rich Angola from Monday to Wednesday, fulfilling a two-year-old promise to visit Africa, just as his term draws to a close.

The trip marks the first time a sitting U.S. president has traveled to sub-Saharan Africa since 2015, when then U.S. President Barack Obama visited Kenya and Ethiopia. It is also the first time an American head-of-state has visited Angola.

During the visit, Biden pledged another 600 million U.S. dollars for the Lobito Corridor, an infrastructure project led by Western enterprises and backed by the White House.

The Lobito Corridor refers to a railway network spanning over 2,000 km and connecting Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), and Zambia. It includes the 1,344-km Benguela Railway, and a new greenfield railway planned as a branch line from Angola's existing network into northern Zambia.

The corridor aims to link Africa's resource-rich Copperbelt to the Atlantic Ocean, reflecting U.S. efforts to seek dominance in critical minerals like copper, lithium, and cobalt, key components of green technology where Washington lags behind global competitors.

However, analysts caution that the project's future remains uncertain, particularly with a leadership change on the horizon in the United States. Moreover, given that past U.S. promises to African nations often lacked follow-through, many fear the initiative could become yet another empty commitment.

RUBBER CHECK

In September 2021, the Angolan government launched a public tender for the concession of the Lobito Corridor railway, including the operation, maintenance, and restoration of both the railway and the ore port. By July 2022, Angola announced that a Western consortium had secured the bid, leading to the establishment of the Lobito Atlantic Railway (LAR) company to oversee the project.

The United States and its European allies pledged funding for the project, which marks Washington's largest railway investment in Africa in decades, according to the Stimson Center, a Washington-based think tank.

A source familiar with the tender process revealed that the Western consortium won the concession by promising to build the greenfield railway. "Economically, their promise seems unfeasible," the source said anonymously.

A March report by Africa Intelligence, a Paris-based publication focusing on African affairs, raised concerns about the U.S. commitment. It noted that the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), a state agency financing the Lobito Corridor project, doubted the viability of the greenfield railway.

"The DFC has been studying the commercial interest of the Angola-Zambia segment since last July but is not convinced of its relevance. It would require the construction of an entirely new railway line in both countries, which would be much more expensive than rehabilitating the existing Angolan and Congolese lines," the report said.

The stretch from the Angolan-DRC border to the DRC's mining regions, which is the railway network's primary purpose to transfer minerals, remains defunct and requires extensive renovation. Mining companies in the DRC pointed out that the LAR has yet no plans to refurbish or construct this critical portion. Consequently, the Lobito Corridor risks becoming a "dead-end line" that fails to deliver the anticipated economic benefits.

The evidence suggests that the Lobito Corridor project, though presented as an economic initiative, may primarily be a U.S. "rubber check" to African countries.

"Angola is therefore only a platform for Biden to project U.S. global economic visibility, rather than a desire to drive inclusive development in Africa in a manner that can safeguard security and safety of ordinary people in Africa," said Cavince Adhere, a Kenyan international relations scholar.

It also explains why the LAR delayed paying the concession fees long after winning the bid, prompting concerns within the Angolan government. Fearing the LAR might abandon the project, Angolan officials reportedly approached other bidders, offering them the opportunity to take over the project if they could pay the required fees.

A representative from one of the companies that had initially bid for the project told Xinhua: "The project originally had profit potential, allowing regional countries and companies to benefit together. However, after governments from Western countries like the United States intervened, the project was unnecessarily politicized. When Angolan officials privately asked if we could take over the project in case the Western consortium withdrew, we refused due to the political risks involved."

Over two years have passed since the Western consortium won the bid, yet no progress has been made on its construction. Instead, the consortium's management team has undergone frequent changes.

"The involvement of the United States and its European allies in the Lobito Corridor project indicates Washington's increasing willingness to use great power competition as an organizing framework for foreign policy. That, in turn, raises many questions about the efficacy and viability of the 'equal partnership' the Biden administration has articulated as part of its much-touted 'reset' of relations with African countries," said a report published by the Stimson Center, titled "The Empty Promises of the U.S.-EU Lobito Infrastructure Project."

TOXIC AID

The Lobito Corridor is not the first "empty promise" Washington has made in Africa, and it will not be the last.

Earlier this year, Biden pledged to continue supporting Kenya in building a 440-km highway connecting the capital Nairobi to the port city of Mombasa, with a projected investment of 3.6 billion dollars. However, a similar project which was agreed upon between Kenya and the United States back in 2017 and expected to be completed in 2024 had never broken ground.

In recent years, the DRC and Zambia signed separate memorandums of understanding (MoUs) with the United States and the EU, aiming to establish special economic zones to process raw minerals into battery components and other preliminary products.

But progress remains elusive. As Harvard International Review noted in an article, "If these good intentions never advance beyond the MoU stage, they are worth as much as toilet paper."

However, "empty promises" are not the worst-case scenario for such cooperation or aid initiatives in Africa. Many African nations refer to cooperation with the West as "toxic aid," as it often comes with political strings attached, which can harm their economies, or even lead to regime change in extreme cases.

The United States, besides exerting pressure on African countries through multilateral institutions, also seeks to dominate African trade through bilateral agreements, including the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). While AGOA allows African goods to enter the U.S. market, it has evolved into a diplomatic "weapon" for interfering in African countries' internal affairs.

In 2023, the Biden administration excluded Niger, Gabon, Uganda, and the Central African Republic from AGOA for alleged "gross violations" of human rights or failure to establish "political pluralism and the rule of law."

Susan Muhwezi, Uganda's Senior Presidential Advisor on AGOA & Trade, warned that this decision would severely harm Ugandan exporters, which would amount to a "violation of human rights." Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni criticized Washington for manipulating and lecturing countries with different values, saying "Stop manipulations and lectures to the societies that are different from yours."

The Institute for Security Studies Africa, Africa's leading think tank on security policy, said that for many African nations, "the biggest bugbear of AGOA is that they feel the U.S. wields it like the 'sword of Damocles,' undermining their political autonomy on the global stage and imposing the U.S. ideology on their sovereignty."

AFRICA LEFT LAST

Whether it is the Lobito Corridor project or AGOA, the shadow of economic sanctions looms behind the U.S. foreign policy in Africa. Despite Washington's pledge to establish equal partnerships with African countries, its hegemonic practices, marked by interference and sanctions, persist.

Africa remains one of the regions most heavily affected by sanctions imposed by the United States and other Western nations. Among these, Zimbabwe has borne the brunt, enduring prolonged and severe sanctions.

In 2001, the United States enacted its sanctions on Zimbabwe, which have over two decades significantly hindered Zimbabwe's economy, industrial growth, and public welfare. The sanctions were widely regarded as a primary factor in the country's prolonged economic stagnation and declining living conditions.

In 2023, Zimbabwean Vice President Constantino Chiwenga estimated that these sanctions had cost the country 150 billion dollars in economic losses, highlighting the severe impact of U.S. sanctions on Zimbabwe's poverty and instability.

Rutendo Matinyarare, chairperson of the Zimbabwe Anti-Sanctions Movement, has called these sanctions "a tool of neo-colonialism," emphasizing that they come from "the same toolbox of coercion used to enslave and colonize Africans."

Zimbabwe is not an isolated case. The United States has imposed sanctions on several other African countries, including the Central African Republic, the DRC, Ethiopia, Libya, Mali, Somalia, Sudan, and South Sudan, causing significant harm to their social, economic, and human rights development.

"The key is the perception that America perpetuates hegemonic relations with Africa, reeking of neocolonial tendencies where the United States is all-powerful. Africa desires development, like investments, trade, infrastructure development, and technology transfer, but these are not coming from the U.S.," said Adhere.

At the second U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit in December 2022, Biden said "I'm looking forward to hearing more from all of you about the issues and priorities that matter most to Africa and how we can deepen our cooperation. And I emphasize 'cooperation'."

However, many critics argue that the so-called "cooperation" from the United States is not rooted in mutual benefit or win-win outcomes, but rather serves as a vehicle for advancing its own global political and economic interests.

"The United States operates under political motives rather than genuine economic partnerships," said Francisco Viana, president of the Luanda Business Association. "We want a different approach, one similar to China's proposal."

For many on the continent, the pressing need is for partnerships that prioritize African development, not agendas shaped by external powers. As CNBC, an American news outlet, observed in a report on U.S. policy in Africa, "'America First' may put Africa last." 

Related

Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)