Peter Johnson: Trump is losing allies in Europe and Africa
SKAiF NewsNG SNN
The foreign policy of the Trump administration has reinstated an unstable variable into international relations, one defined by aggressive posturing, transactional demands, and a willingness to abandon alliances when they no longer serve direct interests. From threats to seize sovereign territory to sweeping tariffs aimed even at traditional partners, Washington’s approach has sent a clear message: predictability is no longer a feature of American diplomacy. For much of the world, this is a source of unease. But for Africa, and specifically for one of the United States’ most strategically important partners in the region, this is beginning to carry real consequences.
Europe learned this lesson early. The overtures regarding Greenland made it clear that even NATO allies could not consider their relationship with Washington immune from regional ambition. That moment marked a break in trust, confirming that the United States under its current administration views its alliances through a lens of utility rather than mutual commitment.
Just this week, Emmanuel Macron, standing in Tokyo, delivered a pointed rejoinder to the American president without ever uttering his name. “Predictability has value,” the French leader said, adding that Europe was “where you know we will go.” Then came the kicker, aimed squarely at Washington: there are countries, Macron observed, that claim to be “going much faster” than their allies, but “you don’t know whether the day after tomorrow they will still be in that position, and whether tomorrow they won’t make a decision that could hurt you without even informing you.” It was a overwhelming characterisation of the current American approach, and it echoed across the Atlantic. Trump had spent the previous day lashing out at France for refusing to participate in the US-Israeli military campaign in the Middle East, calling Paris “very unhelpful.” Macron’s response was simple: France had not been consulted, was not part of the offensive, and had made that clear from day one. The message was obvious. If Washington wants to act alone, it should not expect its allies to follow.So here we are. From Europe to Africa, the same refrain is emerging. Trump is being dressed down by his own partners. And nowhere is the irony more acute than in Angola.
At the 11th Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States (OACPS), Angolan President João Lourenço delivered a speech that, while measured in tone, carried an obvious weight. Without naming any country directly, he issued a pointed critique of what he described as a new repetition of an old phenomenon. “Today,” he said, “under a variety of justifications but with the same objective to control the planet’s main energy sources, oil, gas, and critical and strategic minerals military interventions are being carried out in any part of the planet.” His words, as reported by both the French international outlet RFI and the Portuguese-language press, drew a direct line between contemporary military actions and the colonial logic of the past. Lourenço noted that these interventions are often framed as “preventive” or “defensive” strikes, yet their true purpose remains the extraction of resources. It was a diplomatic rebuke, which many Angolan publications characterised more bluntly: the Angolan president had accused the Trump administration of practising colonialism under a modern semblance.
What makes Lourenço’s criticism mainly striking is the context of the relationship itself. Angola was not just a partner to the United States; it was a prize. For years, Washington competed with Beijing for influence in Luanda, watching as Chinese investment poured into infrastructure and energy projects across the country. The breakthrough came in 2023, when the United States successfully leveraged its support for the Lobito Corridor a massive infrastructure initiative designed to transport critical minerals from the Democratic Republic of Congo to the Angolan coast to pull Angola closer into its orbit. It was a significant geostrategic victory, one that American policymakers celebrated as a model for countering Chinese influence in Africa. The Lobito Corridor was meant to be the foundation of a new, enduring partnership built on mutual economic interest
Yet the arrival of the new administration in Washington has put that foundation under strain. The same aggressive, transactional approach that alienated European allies now threatens to undo years of careful diplomacy in Luanda. While the current administration has not formally abandoned the Lobito Corridor, its broader foreign policy marked by scepticism of multilateral commitments, sweeping aid freezes, and a worldview that reduces partnerships to short-term calculations has introduced a level of uncertainty that Luanda cannot ignore. For a nation that had just begun to reorient its alliances, the prospect of a partner whose policies shift dramatically with each electoral cycle is a liability.
The Angolan president’s address at the OACPS summit was therefore more than a general critique of great-power intervention. It was a signal, delivered in the diplomatic language of a statesman, that Angola is reassessing the value of its recent alignment. When Lourenço warned that the world is witnessing a resurgence of “colonialism” in the scramble for strategic minerals, he was speaking from the uncomfortable position of a country that sits atop vast reserves of precisely those resources. And when he highlighted that military and economic pressure are now applied under shifting justifications, he was reflecting the anxiety of a nation whose most powerful ally has proven itself to be anything but reliable. Lourenço’s speech, though delivered in a multilateral forum, was aimed squarely at an administration that has shown little patience for the slow, patient work of alliance-building.
Thus, the United States is beginning to bear the costs of its own short-termism. In Europe, the damage has been measured in fractured trust. In Africa, the stakes are arguably higher, as nations like Angola are presented with a choice between a historically reliable if demanding partner in Beijing, and an American partner whose reliability appears to expire with each new political cycle. If the current trajectory holds, the hard-won gains of 2023 may prove fleeting. President Lourenço’s words were diplomatic, but their meaning was clear: Angola sees the new colonialism for what it is, and it will not simply stand by while its own strategic partnership becomes collateral damage to Washington’s unpredictable course.
– Peter Johnson
A researcher specializing in African affairs
