On January 29th, 2026, WorldBoston started the new year strong with a highly anticipated Great Decisions panel regarding U.S. Engagement with Africa. The panel featured three prominent figures in the global community: Stephanie Sullivan, former U.S. ambassador to the African Union, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Ghana, Kennedy Ukelegharanya, a business attorney at a multinational law firm; and moderator Dr. Scott Taylor, Dean at Boston University’s Pardee School of Global Studies. Each speaker offered comprehensive, informed perspectives on the future of the U.S.–Africa relations at a moment when U.S. engagement is shifting away from direct government investment and towards private, commercial partnerships.
Dr. Taylor began the conversation by addressing the relevance of this Great Decisions event. The Dean remarked that most U.S. citizens hear very little news about the state of Africa. He emphasized that the news we do hear is centered around ongoing political tensions throughout the continent. It's been suggested that because of the recent decline in U.S. direct intervention with African development, and the subsequent shift to a more commercial relationship with Africa, news of the continent’s economic progress is now overshadowed. However, Dr. Taylor confirmed that the phrase “trade over aid” isn’t new to the Trump administration, implying that current policy reflects long-term structural thinking rather than short-term political pivots. The moderator concluded his opening remarks by proposing that a decline in U.S. foreign direct investment will prompt Africa to find “African solutions to African problems.”
In regards to present-day relations between the U.S. and Africa, Ukelegharanya reaffirmed Dr. Taylor’s statement that the current U.S. government isn’t a global trailblazer pertaining to their “trade over aid” aspirations. In fact, he mentions that China has harbored a purely commercial relationship with Africa for years now, and considers this an opportunity for the U.S. to catch up to the East. Ambassador Sullivan shared a similar, positive sentiment about what a reduction in U.S. direct foreign investment means for Africa. She implied that there’s frustration on both continents due to the lack of concrete progress that Africa has made economically. In fact, the Ambassador noted that he shares Dr. Taylor’s notion that African problems need African solutions, and observes that the international relocation of money could prompt the continent to more directly pursue its own development.
Dr. Taylor then posed the question of how the implementation of technology is used to help African growth. To this, Ukelegharanya had a clear response: there is a lack of basic technological infrastructure in Africa that’s prohibiting the continent from reaching its economic potential. He points mainly to the absence of widespread electricity. Without electricity, Ukelegharanya says, Africa will continue to struggle even in agricultural industries that it should be dominating. Ambassador Sullivan also directed attention to Africa’s infrastructure in response to how the continent can garner the private investment that it needs to succeed without the U.S. federal government. She says that for investors to trust that African governments are properly allocating their money throughout the continent, African states need to develop a stable and predictable political environment complete with a fixed set of laws. These laws can then be used as leverage to promote democratization throughout the continent, which she explains will attract long-term investors specifically. Enduring investors are vital to African development. In building these personal relationships, both U.S. investors and African businesses will see the most gain from their commercial engagements.
Ambassador Sullivan’s response about investment prompted an interesting question from the audience: How do you dissuade investors from pulling out of their investments earlier than is economically beneficial for Africa when they aren’t receiving timely returns on their investments? Ukelegharanya approached his answer to this question from a different perspective. He implores investors to target specific sectors of Africa that have already shown potential for immense growth. One of the industries he mentions is Afrobeats, or the African music industry. The music scene in Nigeria, for instance, is one of many industries in Africa that Ukelegharanya thinks have potential to develop lucratively, if the industry receives the right investments.
As both speakers established that investment is conditional on democracy, the panel concluded with a question about how Africa can continue to develop its democratic infrastructure in a way that benefits their citizens. Their answers led the audience back to the reason why U.S. engagement with Africa is critical right now. Since the U.S. reduced their direct government investment, Africa stands at the precipice of change. All of the panelists stated their belief that there’s an opportunity for African governments to restructure their own infrastructure, without foreign persuasion, in a way that prioritizes the development of their continent. The restructuring must prioritize establishing a stable legal framework that fosters democracy. These experts believe that democracy will invite the private sector to invest in already developing African industries such as technology. Thus, the panel concluded that the proposed transactional relationship between the United States and Africa could benefit both continents if it’s developed intentionally.
