Trump's third-country deportation deals rile African citizens

There is a growing backlash on the African continent against the deportation of third-country nationals from the United States, as Washington DC continues to pursue a policy one analyst says reflects the “very transactional” way the current administration is approaching relations with Africa. As part of President Trump’s campaign pledge to “carry out the largest deportation operation in American history”, the US government has so far struck deals with at least ten African countries to accept deportees, the majority of whom are not citizens of the receiving African country. Individuals from countries such as Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, Jamaica and Myanmar have been sent to African countries because their own countries refused to cooperate in the deportation process. The deals have been criticised for being secretive and opaque. Analysts believe that they include security incentives and economic arrangements such as relief from tariffs. Aimée-Noël Mbiyozo, senior research consultant at the Institute for Security Studies, has noted that “many African states have entered into agreements to avoid tariffs or visa restrictions, or to receive funding or security.” The deportation deals have proved to be controversial in Africa – particularly when they involve violent criminals. In July the US deported five men convicted of crimes including child rape and murder to Eswatini. Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary at the US Homeland Security Department, said “this flight took individuals so uniquely barbaric that their home countries refused to take them back.” The government of Eswatini declined to tell the BBC whether it had been paid. The news prompted concern within Eswatini, with locals reportedly worried that local prisons are not sufficiently equipped to deal with such dangerous criminals. In the courts in Ghana Ghana’s deal with the US, which has seen the West African country receive at least 60 deportees since September last year, has sparked legal challenges – with an international group of human rights lawyers filing a lawsuit at the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Court of Justice in Abuja. The case alleges that Ghana, which has agreed to process deportees and then forward them to countries where they could reportedly face persecution, has violated the bloc’s laws by breaching rules against forced return. Oliver Barker-Vormayor, a Ghanian lawyer and activist, has said that “Ghana cannot become a mechanism through which people are transferred from one jurisdiction to another without meaningful consideration of the dangers they face. The principle of non-refoulement exists because the international community has recognised that no person should be returned to a place where they face persecution, torture, or serious threats to their dignity and safety.” Daniel Silke, a political analyst based in Cape Town, tells African Business that the deals are being met with scepticism on the continent. “I think for many African citizens in these countries, they are sceptical of the role of hegemonic superpowers – they would like their governments to be a lot more independent and not bow to pressure on a variety of issues, and that would certainly extend to the deportation of criminals into African jurisdictions. “It adds to an increasing sense of unease that many African citizens have with the role of the superpowers on the continent as they try to exert influence,” Silke adds. “It once again leaves African citizens wondering just how much agency their countries have. “While there may be trade or security paybacks that might be seen as relatively beneficial, this could also create instability in Africa if this ultimately manifests in protests against sitting governments or pressure from electorates.” ‘America First’ The move comes at a time when the United States is reshaping its foreign policy around an “America First” agenda that prioritises what the administration sees as US national security and economic interests. Since the inauguration in January last year, the Trump administration has ramped up efforts to secure critical minerals supplies from Africa, tied African healthcare aid to access to citizens’ data and now pushed African governments to play a greater role in its migration agenda. Cameron Hudson, who previously served as the director for African affairs in the White House and is now a political risk consultant at 54 Advisors in Washington DC, tells African Business that the controversial migrations deals reflect the transactional way in which the US is currently wielding power – not just in Africa, but around the world. “Like a lot of relationships in the world, today it feels very transactional, short-sighted and not particularly strategic,” he says. “But I think we could make that argument about lots of other regions in the world, not just Africa. The effects of US choices happen to be particularly acute in Africa, and the continent certainly has less resilience in the face of some of the decisions that Washington has made, but the US approach is not unique to Africa.” Hudson suggests that this somewhat heavy-handed approach could ultimately prove self-defeating. “The United States thinks it can pursue its strategic objectives of partnering with African countries on counterterrorism, doing big deals like selling Boeing plans to Ethiopia or undertaking major infrastructure projects – and at the same time that we can pick fights with South Africa and Nigeria and put more than half the countries of Africa on a travel ban list. “We can do all of this and impose really onerous tariffs – which frankly are not even grounded in any kind of reality, let alone fairness – and then strongarm them to take our deportees? We can do all of these things that are, in many ways, belittling to African countries and then there is this expectation that they are going to want to do business with us,” Hudson argues. Hudson also notes that the deportation pacts also reflect the way in which the Trump administration’s transactional approach to foreign policy tends to benefit the world’s more authoritarian countries. Authoritarian-leaning governments With the exception of Ghana, the countries that have so far signed up to accept US deportees could be broadly defined as authoritarian-leaning or as having fragile democracies: Equatorial Guinea, Rwanda, Eswatini, South Sudan, the Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Cameroon, Sierra Leone and Uganda. “We cannot ignore the fact that, by and large, authoritarian regimes in Africa have benefited under the Trump administration – benefited from a lack of scrutiny, a lack of criticism and a lack of engagement,” Hudson tells African Business. “They have benefited in some respects because they might be more willing to do the kind of transactional deals that other countries do not want to do. If you look at the list of African countries that have taken in US deportees, more often than not, they are less free, less democratic and less open.” For African governments seeking to navigate the age of Trump, the deals pose a difficult problem: whether to seize the immediate benefits of closer ties with Washington or to risk confrontation with the US in defence of greater sovereignty and strategic independence. The controversy surrounding the deals raise broader questions about the future direction of US-Africa relations and whether the Trump presidency will undermine Washington’s long-term influence on the continent. Hudson says “I think the real question is, how long does it take for African countries to forgive and forget? How long does it take for them to see the United States as a reliable and valuable partner again?”