African investors pitch Trump tumult as potential turning point
BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. — African investors see opportunity in the chaos of President Trump's return to the White House, despite the pain caused by his foreign aid cuts and whiplash tariff decisions.
That was the message from Vice Adm. Issah Adam Yakubu, the former chief of staff of Ghana's navy, who spoke at the Milken Institute Conference in Los Angeles this week.
'I have coined a term: Acquired Aid Addiction Syndrome,' Yakubu told a packed room for the panel titled 'Securing Africa's Future.' He said foreign charity was not the answer to Africa's challenges.
'That never will help us. What we need is trade — fair trade. Aid does not make us resilient, it kills our resilience. … It's like a virus eating you up.'
While the continent is reeling from the termination of billions of dollars in U.S. assistance for health, education, social and life-sustaining programs, investors pitching the crowd at Milken tried to shift the narrative — talking about new partnerships and opportunities for growth.
Yakubu wants to educate the next generation of Africans about professional opportunities at sea, and as a first-time attendee to the conference, is looking to make connections to help grow his nonprofit think tank, the Gulf of Guinea Maritime Institute.
The Milken confab draws a tony crowd. Some access fees start at $25,000, in exchange for an opportunity to mingle among a group of high-powered CEOs, government officials, philanthropists, scientists, investors, nonprofit leaders — and members of the media.
'The most important is networking to be able to meet people, particularly those who can support our initiatives,' Yakubu told The Hill in a short interview.
'What I want to get from the conference is to have a global view of what to expect in the next 2-3 years so that we can prepare ourselves for that.'
The uncertainty surrounding the Trump administration's economic agenda was a center point of conversations at the conference.
Treasury Department Secretary Scott Bessent tried to calm nerves in the crowd Tuesday, explaining the administration's three goals — trade, tax cuts and deregulation — were mutually reinforcing and increase the strength of capital for American businesses.
Africa, like the rest of the world, is under Trump's 10 percent global tariff. But Lesotho, Madagascar and South Africa, in particular, are in the crosshairs of Trump's 'reciprocal' tariff policy, which is temporarily paused. Those countries are facing 50 percent, 47 percent and 30 percent tariffs, respectively, unless new trade deals are struck.
The mood at Milken was optimistic.
Chidi Blyden, who served as deputy assistant secretary of Defense for African affairs during the Biden administration, recently opened Culturally Bound, a strategic consulting firm advising on development, security and investment in Africa.
'We got the message that we can still go and invest in Africa, and I still will go and invest in Africa, from its talent to critical minerals,' Blyden said in an interview with The Hill on the sidelines of the summit. 'But what I've done now is I've created a small business to go out and provide advisory services in the private sector.'
Blyden was most recently the deputy CEO of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) — the U.S. government agency known for its infrastructure projects that promoted economic growth, which the Trump administration shut down.
She argued the MCC was one of the best tools to deepen U.S. ties with African countries with the potential to expand abroad, and box out China economically.
'It's not clear right now how the average small business can get into the spaces, I am optimistic that this administration will create funnels and opportunities,' she said.
There are 54 countries on the continent, all with distinct opportunities and challenges. It's also a massive and growing workforce and retail market — by 2050, 1 in 4 people on the planet will be African.
Yet there remain enormous barriers to entry for foreign businesses and investment, from corruption to lack of infrastructure, stalled or slow economic growth, violence and humanitarian crises.
Comfort Ero, president and CEO of the International Crisis Group, cautioned that economic dealmaking would not resolve some of the entrenched conflicts facing the continent.
'If I thought you could use a mineral deal to end decades of war, then there's lots of countries that I imagine would have been fixed already,' Ero said on the African panel at Milken.
She was referring to a potential deal between Washington and the Democratic Republic of Congo, looking to trade mineral wealth for security guarantees. Just last week, Washington inked the framework of a minerals deal with Ukraine, though avoided making any firm commitments on security.
The Congo deal is being formulated as a way to end fighting in eastern Congo with the M23 rebel militia, backed by Rwanda — although a mix of rebel groups are active in the region. Last month, Secretary of State Marco Rubio convened the foreign ministers of Congo and Rwanda to sign a declaration of principles expressing intent to come to a resolution.
Ero said the movement toward peace talks is an important step.
'What it doesn't address is why we've got excessive back-and-forth fighting in the east of the Congo. What it doesn't address is disarmament of militias. What it doesn't address is the insecurity concerns of Kinshasa. And it doesn't address the insecurity concerns of Kigali as well,' she said.
'So I think you can strike a deal that takes out the resources of the country, but if it doesn't deal with the fundamentals, then that's a problem.'
One executive attending the conference, who was granted anonymity to offer a personal view, described a 'disconnect' between developments in Washington and the tone in California.
'I found the voices at Milken to be very booster-ish and far more positive than the mood in Washington to me. There felt like a real disconnect,' the executive said.
'I don't discount what I was hearing at Milken. It was, to me, quite useful as a little bit of a level-set. … People are just, keeping on, keeping on.'
While U.S. aid may not be the answer for Africa's economic future, the executive noted there are 'a lot of lives depending' on continued humanitarian support. Rubio has insisted lifesaving programs will continue despite deep cuts to the United States Agency for International Development.
Trump's cuts to foreign aid for the continent — in particular for HIV/AIDS prevention programs, the suspension of the Prosper Africa initiative and the likely termination of the African Growth and Opportunity Act — are likely to strain ties with the continent. The U.S. also plans to cut $555 million in funding to the African Development Bank.
The administration has not signaled it's going to end support pledged during the Biden administration for the Lobito corridor — a major infrastructure project to move mined minerals from the Congo through Zambia to Angola's Atlantic coast.
One African investor, who asked for anonymity because he did not want to speak on behalf of his company, said the U.S. aid cuts were a gut punch to African leaders and communities.
'I spend a lot of time with authorities across Africa, what all of them were saying … every time they get in the room with the U.S., there was some sort of almost deference to the U.S. because of what the U.S. was doing in terms of programs. … Wll of them are now wondering how are they going to be able to fill the gap,' the investor said.
But the investor said a global economic downturn would be more damaging in terms of his work, which includes philanthropy.
'We know as trade goes down, then there's a chance that the global economy will also slow down, and that will have an implication on commodity prices, and Africa is seen as a commodity exporter,' they said.
'African assets might look less attractive just based on that.'
Laura Kelly received a complimentary press pass to the conference.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Pakistan condemns Trump for bombing Iran a day after recommending him for a Nobel Peace Prize
ISLAMABAD (AP) — Pakistan condemned U.S. President Donald Trump for bombing Iran, less than 24 hours after saying he deserved a Nobel Peace Prize for defusing a recent crisis with India. Relations between the two South Asian countries plummeted after a massacre of tourists in Indian-controlled Kashmir in April. The nuclear-armed rivals stepped closer to war in the weeks that followed, attacking each other until intense diplomatic efforts, led by the U.S., resulted in a truce for which Trump took credit. It was this 'decisive diplomatic intervention and pivotal leadership' that Pakistan praised in an effusive message Saturday night on the X platform when it announced its formal recommendation for him to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. Less than 24 hours later, however, it condemned the U.S. for attacking Iran, saying the strikes 'constituted a serious violation of international law' and the statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, in a phone call Sunday with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, expressed his concern that the bombings had targeted facilities that were under the safeguards of the IAEA. Pakistan has close ties with Iran and supports its attacks on Israel, saying it has the right to self-defense. There was no immediate comment on Monday from Islamabad about the Trump Nobel recommendation, which also followed a high-profile White House lunch meeting between the president and Pakistan's powerful army chief, Asim Munir. Thursday's meeting, which lasted more than two hours, was also attended by the Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Steve Witkoff, the U.S. Special Representative for Middle Eastern Affairs. According to a Pakistani military statement, a detailed exchange of views took place on the 'prevailing tensions between Iran and Israel, with both leaders emphasizing the importance of the resolution of the conflict.' While Pakistan was quick to thank Trump for his intervention in its crisis with India, New Delhi played it down and said there was no need for external mediation on the Kashmir issue. The Himalayan region of Kashmir is divided between Pakistan and India but claimed by both in its entirety. India accuses Pakistan of backing militant groups in the region, which Pakistan denies.
Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
What Does the US Strike on Iran Mean for Israel?
Live on Bloomberg TV CC-Transcript 00:00Walk us through how the Israeli public has responded to the US military intervention over the weekend. Good morning, Joumanna. Yes, well, this was a dramatic weekend, one of historic proportions in Israel as elsewhere in the region and in the world, especially countries that have a stake in this part of the world. And Israelis, I would say this is to judge by everything from television panelists to the people I've shared bomb shelters with during the Iranian retaliatory missile attacks appear to be relieved, jubilant, astonished at the fact that the world's great power, the United States, did intervene finally, and using its firepower for what appears to have been a knockout blow, at least as described by President Trump and by his staff to the Iranian nuclear program. Of course, the question is whether it was a knockout blow. And I think what you're going to see today is the discourse shifting to one of BDA. That's the refrain you'll be hearing a lot of battle damage assessments, whether indeed it was a knockout blow, whether indeed the damage was enough to end any credible work at those sites and effectively allow Israel to pack up and say that the war is over. The main threat, what it's described as the main threat to its existence going back decades has now been dealt with conclusively. I thought it was interesting. The Israeli prime minister gave a televised address yesterday where he said Israel is very close to reaching goals in Iran but will also avoid a war of attrition. How should we be reading those comments, Dan? Well, it's worth keeping in mind that the two countries are separated by something like a thousand miles of territory. I think three international borders, Iran is something like 70 times the size of Israel. There really is an asymmetry here in terms of disposition, geography, military standing. So for all the virtuosity of Israeli forces here, I don't think they could afford to sustain fighting in the long run, something akin to what we've seen in the last 20 months in Gaza, in Lebanon, in Syria, which are neighboring countries or neighboring territories. So the Israelis are looking logistically at this. I think they're also signaling to the American public, those Americans who are wondering whether this is a repeat of 2003 in Iraq, that this was a one time deal for Israel and for the United States, that perhaps the US role has begun and ended with this airstrike and that Israel, the country most involved in this, the U.S. ally, is really also trying to wrap things up as soon as it believes that its goals have been achieved and those goals may be achieved very soon.
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
NATO allies will pledge to hike defense spend – but will they deliver?
Fireworks could kick off during NATO's annual summit this week, as the U.S. pushes its allies to sharply increase their defense spending to 5% of their gross domestic product (GDP). The 5% figure is made up of 3.5% of GDP that should be spent on "pure" defense, with an extra 1.5% of GDP going to security-related infrastructure, such as cyber warfare capabilities and intelligence. While some member states they're happy to hit that milestone, and some countries are not too far off that mark, others don't even meet the 2% threshold that was agreed over a decade ago. While they might pledge to increase defense spending, whether these promises materializes will be the key question. Talk is cheap and timelines can be vague — but concerted action is what the U.S. and President Donald Trump, who's attending a NATO summit for the first time since 2019, will want to see. "The U.S. is looking for everybody to say, 'Yeah, we mean it. We have a plan. 5% is real. We're going to get there'," Kurt Volker, former U.S. ambassador to NATO and distinguished fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), said Wednesday. "But one thing to watch for is if the messaging is actually on point. Some of the messaging from some of our European allies, at least when they back brief their own media and their own parliaments is, 'Yeah, 5% but it's really 3.5% and 1.5%, and that can be pretty much anything' ... So there's going to be a whittling down [of defense spending pledges] almost immediately," Volker noted at a CEPA briefing ahead of the NATO summit. "And if that is over emphasized, you're going to have a clash with the U.S.," Volker added. The stakes are high as allies meet in The Hague in the Netherlands on June 24-25, given ongoing conflict in Ukraine and war in the Middle East threatening to destabilize the global economy. Defense analysts say this year's meeting could be the most consequential in the alliance's 77-year history, with the U.S.' spend-pushing heavily forewarned before the summit. U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was emphatic as he said 5% "will happen" at a separate NATO gathering earlier this month, with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte also widely plugging that message to allies too. Defense spending has been a thorny subject for NATO members for years, and a persistent source of annoyance and anger for Trump, who was demanding that allies double their spending goals from 2% to 4% of GDP all the way back in 2018. NATO defense expenditure has nevertheless sharply picked up among NATO members since Trump was last in power. Back then, and arguably at the height of the White House leader's irritation with the bloc, only six member states met the 2% target, including the U.S. Times have changed, however; by 2024, 23 members had reached the 2% threshold, according to NATO data. While some greatly surpassed that target — such as Poland, Estonia, the U.S., Latvia and Greece — major economies including Canada, Spain and Italy have lagged below the contribution threshold. No NATO member has so far reached the 5% spending objective, and some are highly likely to drag their feet when it comes to getting to that milestone now. The U.K., Poland and Germany have already said they intend to increase defense spending to the requisite target, but their timeline is unclear. The UK is also reportedly trying to delay the spending rise among by three years, according to the i newspaper. CNBC has reached out to Downing Street for comment. Spain and Italy are seen as major holdouts against the 5% target, after only committing to reach the 2% threshold in 2025. Canada meanwhile spent 1.3% of GDP on defense in 2024, NATO estimates suggest, even less than Italy, Portugal or Montenegro. Spending 5% on defense is a target, but not a given, Jason Israel, senior fellow for the Defense Technology Initiative at CEPA, said Wednesday. "Every single country ... is trying to figure out how they're going to thread that needle of being able to make the commitment, but also make the accounting work when every single nation has to make trade offs against what is generally unpopular, massive increases in defense spending," he noted, stressing it's a "long way from commitments ... to actual capability," European aerospace and defense companies are following NATO spending commentary and commitments closely, but say they're stuck in limbo between pledges and action by way of concrete government procurement. The leaders of Leonardo, Embraer and Saab told CNBC last week the continent needs to act decisively and collectively to make long-term commitments to defense spending and investment contracts to enable companies like theirs to scale-up their production capacity and manufacturing capabilities. "If we go for 3.5% [of pure defense spending] across the European part of NATO, that will mean a lot, and more will be needed in terms of capacity. But we need to understand the capability targets better," Micael Johansson, the chief executive of Swedish defense company Saab, told CNBC. "We can do more, and I think we need to come together in Europe to create more scale, also in what we do to align demand, align requirements, so we can actually be competitive player in internationally. So there's a lot to do still," he said. Roberto Cingolani, CEO of Italian defense firm Leonardo, agreed that "there's a lot of work to be done." "Leonardo has a capacity boost program at the moment because we are quite aware of the fact that we have to increase the production of specific platforms, defense systems, electronics and technology solutions. It is not only matter of money, it's matter of priority. It's matter of reducing the fragmentation among countries in Europe," he told CNBC's Charlotte Reed at the Paris Air Show. Defense companies needed to know what will be expected of them ahead of time, Cingolani said, given the complex nature of global supply chains that underpin the defense industry. "We have approximately 5000 companies in the supply chain, and we are in 160 countries in the world. So it's very complicated," he noted. "You have to invest in supply chain. You have to make investments. You have to protect the supply chain. But of course, we also have to face a shortage of raw materials ... There is no no simple solution. If there were a solution, we would have done it already," he said.
