Is Kamala Harris'​ visit to Africa about strengthening ties or countering China's influence?

The growing engagement of the U.S. and China in Africa has led to a heated debate about the impact of their activities on the continent. The current visit of U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris to the African continent has reignited the debate about the two countries' engagement. While in recent years, both countries have made significant investments in the African continent, critics have raised concerns about their motives and the potential risks of their involvement.

One of the countries whose engagements have been characterized by a focus on infrastructure development, natural resource extraction, and trade is China. While some argue that China-Africa engagement has helped create economic growth in Africa, others have raised concerns about the risks of exploitation of African resources, labor, and the potential for debt-trap diplomacy.

A report by the Council on Foreign Relations states: "China's approach to Africa has been condemned for its absence of transparency, lack of regard for local labor laws and environmental standards, and support for authoritarian regimes." Critics assert that China's investments in Africa are driven mainly by its economic interests rather than a genuine desire to contribute to African development.

Unlike China, the United States has placed above all else promoting democracy, human rights, and security in Africa, with a special emphasis on counterterrorism. Though these are essential initiatives that have helped stabilize conflict-prone areas, others have criticized the U.S. engagement as neocolonialism and focusing on military aid.

According to an article from Al Jazeera, "the United States, as a Western power, has a history of meddling in African affairs." Critics believe that, like China, the U.S. approach is frequently motivated by self-interest rather than legitimate concern for African development.

The recent visit to Africa by Vice President Kamala Harris has sparked discussion about the potential impact of U.S.- Africa engagement. For some, Harris's visit is an important step toward strengthening US-Africa relations; however, others are worried about the lack of concrete policy proposals and the possibility that the U.S. will continue to pursue its own interests in Africa.

An article by The Washington Post states: "many Africans have been hoping for more than just rhetoric from the United States, but quality investments in African economies and infrastructure." In this same line of focus, critics claim that the U.S. should do more to support sustainable development in Africa rather than concentrating its focus on security concerns.

What should African Government do?

With the diverging opinions surrounding the impact of U.S. - Africa and China - Africa relationships, how should Africa respond? How should Africa address the competing interests of the United States and China? Many experts believe that African governments should be careful of falling into debt traps with China and work to negotiate better terms for their investments. African government should also prioritize local needs and involve local communities in decision-making processes.

In terms of the United States' engagement, the emphasis should transition away from military aid and be concentrated toward investment in keen sectors such as education, health, and infrastructure, while placing greater focus on supporting local businesses and promoting sustainable development.

To summarize, the United States' and China-Africa's engagement has both positive and negative consequences for the continent. However, African countries should work to ensure that foreign investments and aid are aligned with their own interests and priorities rather than satisfying the urge of outside powers. Only then can Africa genuinely benefit from the resources and opportunities these global powers provide.