As the US Cuts Aid, Will China Take Over Africa’s Development?

On January 20, Trump’s administration issued an executive order, conducting a full investigation to the USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development) programs, placing almost all its employees “administrative leave”, and suspending all the aids. All foreign aid funds have been frozen for 90 days to conduct a full review. Aid programs around the world have stalled, with billions of dollars frozen. Secretary of State Marco Rubio was appointed as the acting administrator, signaling the takeover of State Department to this agency. Shortly afterwards, the White House announced to eliminate more than 90% of the foreign aid, cutting $60 million in funding. Trump’s administration also plans to cut USAID’s workforce from more than 10,000 to 294, a 97 percent reduction. The new policy faced oppositions from all sectors. On Feb. 7, U.S. Federal Judge Carl Nichols issued an order suspending the Trump’s plan on “administrative leave” for USAID employees and brought 500 of them back to office. The protests against the abolishment are taking place right now.  However, despite interference from Congress and the society, the policy to cut USAID programs has partially gone into effect, and more battles are likely ahead. USAID was established in 1961, which managed foreign aid and development programs. Its mission is to support the foreign policy goals of the United States by promoting development in the third world, improving health and education conditions, and providing humanitarian assistance. Its projects covered more than 100 countries around the world, mainly in Africa, Southeast Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe. In 2023, its global budget is about $40 billion, with sub-Saharan Africa accounting for a significant proportion of aid. Its “Feed for Future” program aims to reduce poverty and hunger through agricultural development and improved nutrition. Its President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (PEPFAR) aims to control the spread of AIDS by providing antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) and other prevention measures, which has saved more than 25 million lives by 2024. The USAID also seeks to promote Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance (DRG), which supported the democratic elections and the organization of human right activities in many third world areas. However, some criticisms also suggested that the USAIDs are not free lunch, but with purpose of political interference. In countries like El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, USAID has attached conditions to political reform and market-based privatization to influence local politics. Venezuela and Cuba have repeatedly condemned USAID’s interference and closed their offices in the country. Meanwhile, the right-wing political forces within the US had become increasingly fed up with the foreign aids, as the aids could not bring direct and immediate benefit to their own country, which was part of the reason for its freeze.

Though controversial both internally and externally, it is undeniable that USAID has played a significant role in third-world’s humanitarian issues. The suspension of USAID has brought immediate impacts to Africa. The cases below had been confirmed by the Associate Press (AP): in Congo, “Action Against Hunger” will stop treating tens of thousands of malnourished children from May, which the charity said will put the children in “mortal danger”; in Ethiopia, food assistance stopped for more than 1 million people, and Ethiopia has been forced to lay off 5,000 local healthcare workers who were working on its HIV response; in Senegal, the biggest malaria project has been closed, as well as aternal and child health and nutrition services; in South Sudan, a project providing access to quality health care and nutrition services to more than 115,000 people has been closed; in Burkina Faso, more than 400,000 people lost access to services such as water; in Somalia, 50 health centers servicing more than 19,000 people a month closed because health workers’ salaries have been frozen. These were only a small proportion of already confirmed impacts.

UN Secretary general called on other donors to increase their contributions. African countries had also made statements that they will make good use of their own efforts to tackle the impact. However, the aids from other organizations as well as African countries’ own efforts are unlikely to fully fill up the $60 billion gap left by USAID, particularly in humanitarian assistance and health, due to their limited capacities. The World Bank has announced that it will adjust its lending program to support economic projects in Africa but focus on infrastructure rather than direct aid. EU has also announced to consider increasing aids in Africa, but due to its own tight budgets, the scale is likely not enough. The World Health Organization (WHO) has warned that the cuts could lead to 16 million new malaria cases and 166,000 deaths in Africa each year.

In the US, the opposition to the suspension not only came from humanitarians, but also politicians concerning that the US is contracting its influence in Africa and yielding it to China. The Guardian described it as a ‘perfect opportunity’ for Beijing to grow its own soft power in Africa. In fact, China has been providing aids to Africa long before this suspension. Different from USAID that provides direct humanitarian materials, China focus more on investing Africa’s infrastructure to help them achieve long-term economic development. China has helped Africa to build over 100 ports, 10,000 kilometers of railways, 100,000 kilometers of highways, 200,000 kilometers of fiber-optic networks, and more than 200 hospitals and schools in Africa. These infrastructural investments not only improved the traffic and communication conditions, but also provided foundations for Africa’s resource exploitations and economic development. On the food sector, China’s aids are not limited to directly providing foods, but tends to provide technological support to increase their agriculture efficiency. For example, a rice planting project led by China in Cote d ‘Ivoire has increased yields from 2.5 tons per hectare to more than 4 tons.  On the health sector, China also helped Africa to build hospitals, and has sent medical teams to train the local clinicians. At the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) in September 2024, Chinese President Xi Jinping announced that China would provide over $50 billion in financial support to Africa over the next three years, with more than half of it offered in the form of credit.

Many regard China’s aids as more practical, since it aims to help Africa achieve long-term development by investing infrastructure, which is part of China’s own experience of development. Meanwhile, compared to USAID that additionally ask for “implementing democracy” or “free market”, China’s aids are considered to have relatively less interference to Africa’s domestic affairs.

However, these are not sufficient for China to replace USAID in Africa, for many reasons. The humanitarian crisis taking place in Africa are desperate, they might not even have today, let along the future, while China’s aids focused less on providing immediate humanitarian support. Meanwhile, since China’s aids are in the form of investment, some criticized that China is asking for return instead of providing free assistance. Some even criticized that China’s financial support could place African country into “debt trap”, a situation in which a borrower’s debt obligations exceed their ability to repay, forcing them to take on new debt to repay old ones. Though such concern hasn’t been proved yet, China is indeed the pivotal lender in Africa, exceeding $170 billion to 49 African countries and regional institutions between 2000 and 2022. Further providing loans could potentially aggravate Africa’s debt burden.

While China and other actors could attempt to fill the gap, the question remains: can aid truly be replaced, or will millions be left behind? The world cannot afford to turn a blind eye to Africa’s struggle.

By Xingchen Liu