The House of Representatives recently passed H.R.7311 - Countering Malign Russian Activities in Africa Act, and it is expected to sail through the rest of the process. The motivation is not as transparent as the name might suggest, at least from a jaundiced viewpoint. 

The stated aim of the Act would be to counter malign activities by Russia, its proxies, and oligarchs that ‘undermine United States objectives and interests.’ It was probably a response to Russia’s 24 February invasion of Ukraine. Representative Gregory W. Meeks, Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, claimed that the Act would sanction those who seek to 'pilfer, manipulate, and exploit resources in parts of Africa' in order to evade sanctions and undermine US interests. 

There is little in the way of specifying what those interests are. At a first glance, there are Russian investments, and many bona fide business dealings, in Africa, in countries and industries where American competition or partnership is lamentably absent. In South Africa, there are a few such, some with clear or implied links to the ruling Party. So too in many other parts of Africa.  

In Mozambique, for instance, the Russian Wagner group played a contentious role in enforcing law and order in favor of an unpopular government and to the benefit of foreign, and Russian companies. Human rights excesses drove the population into the arms of Islamist interests. On the withdrawal of Wagner, the Government of Rwanda intervened, probably also to further the interests of the French Total group. The population of the area is, at best, no better off than with Wagner present. 

The role of groups like Wagner in Mali and Central Africa have little to recommend itself, but then so does the presence of other foreign military groups that seek to protect foreign interests. Africa remembers well the history of US intervention in the Congo at the time of its independence. With support from the colonial power, Belgium, the democratically elected President, Patrice Lumumba, was overthrown and murdered, and a military officer, Mobuto sese Seko was installed. His rule of potentially the wealthiest country in Africa is legendary in its excesses. Lumumba's fault? He was an African nationalist, a pan-Africanist who, in the absence of any help from Belgium or the West to keep his fragile government and economy intact, was willing to listen to Soviet offers for support. 

One wonders what would have happened had the United States offered the lessons of its own revolution, its own democratic experiment, to the emergent Congolese state. Instead, it supported insurrection, destabilization, and the setting up of an autocratic despot that would, over the next decades, support the USA on the international scene. 

Instead of genuine interest in the development of Africa, of a complementary economy and genuine democracy that would, inevitably, have its own opinion, this legislation seems like the emergence of a new Cold War psychosis.