Resource Author: Kate Hixon

Good Business Requires Better Governance

Kate Hixon is the Advocacy Director for Africa at Amnesty International USA and Kehinde Togun is the Managing Director for Public Engagement & Partnerships at Humanity United and a Senior Non-Resident Fellow at the Center for International Policy.

When Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the Trump administration’s vision for foreign policy, he said every decision must answer three questions: does it make the U.S. safer; does it make the U.S. stronger; does it make the U.S. more prosperous? The administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) quickly decided that many existing policies and agencies failed to affirmatively answer these three questions. As a result, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) was rapidly dismantled; attacks were launched against any program or policy that focused on human rights or good governance; and defenestration began of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. All these actions signaled to the private sector that the U.S. is open for business, no matter the human rights cost.

At the same time, these and other measures taken against supporting good governance and human rights create a contradictory environment for the administration’s stated goals: they do not make the U.S. safer, or stronger, or more prosperous.

Bad Deals

Most visibly, the Trump administration made a brazen play for critical mineral assets in Ukraine by attempting to browbeat the Ukrainian government for exploratory rights in exchange for ongoing security support. Other countries quickly took notice. The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) President Felix Tshisekedi quickly offered mineral deals in exchange for assistance fighting the Rwandan-backed M23 armed group in eastern DRC, and dozens of lobbyists descended on Washington in “support” of the Congolese government to try and secure a deal. On June 27, the DRC and Rwanda signed a peace agreement in Washington – the first step for both to also secure tentative mineral deals with the U.S. The administration’s Senior Advisor for Africa, Massad Boulos, acknowledged that in order for the mineral deals to work, the signatories needed “a more stable environment.”

Empower Department of State or other government bureaus to fund/implement human rights and good governance programs to increase confidence that private investments are viable; Support projects that protect civilians from harm in conflict and disincentives conflict as a means to control natural resources; Include and empower local civil society actors and journalists whose vital work helps create an enabling environment for responsible investment.

The Trump administration is not unique in its desire to prioritize U.S. interests or to seek to give the U.S. private sector a leg up in access to natural resources. However, unlike previous U.S. administrations, resource extraction appears to be the sole goal of the Trump administration when engaging with African countries. Nonetheless, both the administration and U.S. companies, regardless of sector, are constrained by externalities. Markets rely on stability that comes not only from inking deals between countries or their entrepreneurs, but also from ensuring that agreements are honored, processes are in place, and that people in those countries have their rights respected and benefit from those deals.

Good governance is good for business

For U.S. companies to succeed in African markets, they need to trust the rule of law. That principle — that business can only flourish amid reliable governance structures — is why the Millenium Challenge Corporation placed so much emphasis on governance. It’s also why the Development Finance Corporation and USAID partnered so closely to ensure an enabling legal environment existed for successful investments across the globe. When a U.S. company is assessing a country’s investment profile, it will investigate a number of legitimate questions, including if fair arbitration can be expected in the national courts, whether there is risk of being overtaken by the state or being impacted by conflict, and whether there will be a struggle with recruitment because the population lacks basic health care. 

Without the rule of law, good governance and stability that comes from it, many U.S. companies will simply deem mineral-rich sub-Saharan African countries far too risky for investment.

Yet, when Elon Musk’s DOGE put USAID through the woodchipper, it simultaneously halted Washington’s ability to bolster civil society and support good governance programs overseas. It also eliminated the agency’s investment support via the Development Finance Corporation (DFC), making the investment climate harder for U.S. companies.

In the vacuum left by a retreating U.S., other governments will fill the void. Chinese parastatal companies will have a greater advantage, as their government’s support allows much higher risk tolerance, and fewer human rights safeguards, than many U.S. companies are willing to stomach.

Great prosperity through human dignity

If the Trump administration wants to make the U.S. safer, stronger and more prosperous, it must emphasize its comparative advantage, not eliminate it. While previous U.S. administrations didn’t do enough, they understood that U.S. companies required some semblance of good governance and respect for human rights to invest. 

The DRC recently offered its critical minerals to the U.S. in exchange for the Trump administration supporting Tshekedi’s government. Eastern Congo is home to vast resources of gold, diamonds and the three Ts (tin, tungsten and tantalum). Further south is the world’s largest cobalt reserve — crucial for batteries and electric vehicles. Eastern Congo has a long history of instability, despite regional and international players seeking to cash in on these rich mineral reserves. However, very few U.S. companies have operated in eastern DRC, in part because of Chinese dominance but more broadly because of the high risk associated with operating in the region. Pervasive armed group activity in the area presents a real risk that a company’s mine could be taken over, as happened with the Rubaya mine captured by the M23. Amid a nearly five-year state of siege in eastern DRC, all civilian courts have been replaced with military courts, leaving doubt to companies about the independence of other courts in Congo should they need arbitration.

The DRC also ranks incredibly high on Transparency International’s corruption index, making it more expensive for U.S. companies to operate, especially without the protection of a robust enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

While USAID would not have been a panacea, in countries like DRC and around the world USAID and the State Department were focused on working to improve security, ensure transparency and support people to seek accountability from their governments. Behind the scenes, the private sector is raising candid concern that the closure of USAID and downsizing of State Department agencies will make investing in African countries even more expensive for U.S. companies. 

If the Trump administration wishes to make the U.S. safer, stronger, and more prosperous through U.S. investment in critical mineral sectors abroad, it has to grapple with the loss of that expertise housed at USAID and begin ideating how it will help strengthen independent judiciaries and give companies more confidence in fair arbitration, support peacebuilding projects to help reduce levels of conflict, make a safer security environment for private sector investment, and simultaneously support investigative journalism as an external anti-corruption and accountability mechanism. It might also support health programs in mining communities that fill gaps where government services for critical healthcare were unavailable, and have an agency that works closely with the DRC de-risk investments for U.S. companies.

Companies also can’t sit it out while the administration dismantles the work and programs they need to invest responsibly and sustainably in the region. They need to speak not only to the ability of U.S. businesses to contribute materially to one of the fastest growing economic environments, but also to the value of programs that support rule of law, human rights and labor for their intrinsic good. 

A Roadmap for Sudan in Trump’s First 100 Days

Kate Hixon is the Advocacy Director for Africa at Amnesty International USA and Kehinde Togun is the Managing Director for Public Engagement at Humanity United and a Senior Non-Resident Fellow at the Center for International Policy

Following his second inauguration, President Donald Trump has another chance to enact his foreign policy vision and we urge him to include addressing one of the largest humanitarian crises in the world. With more than 11.4 million Sudanese displaced and over 18,000 killed, the conflict in Sudan presents grave challenges to the new administration. Sudan’s continued collapse is not only an immediate human rights threat to civilians but also risks further destabilizing an already fragile region—a major risk to the United States and its own security interests. The Sudan conflict will also continue to be intertwined with the administration’s Middle East policy; many of those supplying weapons fueling ongoing atrocities were key allies in ceasefire talks between Israel and Hamas. Despite these complications, President Trump has a legacy-defining opportunity by immediately prioritizing Sudan before even more civilians are killed. 

Background

Conflict in Sudan broke out on April 15, 2023, months after two divisions of the Sudanese state militia ended their power sharing agreement, following the removal of their civilian partners from the transitional government in October 2022. The Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan wanted the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) led by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (“Hemedti”) integrated into the traditional army faster than the RSF was prepared to submit control. For the first time in Sudan’s history violent conflict seeped into the capital and quickly spread to the peripheries as well. Soon most of Sudan’s hospitals were out of commission and nearly two million people had fled the country, with millions more displaced internally. 

President Biden initially issued two statements around the closure of the U.S. Embassy and evacuation of Americans. However, it was nearly a year and a half before he addressed the Sudanese people directly. Despite pressure from Congress, it took nearly a year for the Biden administration to appoint a Special Envoy for Sudan, Tom Perriello, and it did not go unnoticed that the envoy reported to Assistant Secretary for Africa, Molly Phee, instead of the Secretary of State. Intentionally or unintentionally, the administration’s message was that Sudan wasn’t a senior-level priority. Yet every few weeks, new reports of atrocities emerged, with the UN Under-Secretary-General and Special Advisor to the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide warning that the “the situation today bears all the marks of risk of genocide, with strong allegations that this crime has already been committed.” In its final days, the Biden administration finally made a genocide determination. The administration also sanctioned leaders of both RSF and the SAF.

Despite co-leading several failed attempts at ceasefires with Saudi Arabia and ultimately standing up a larger Alliance for Lifesaving Peace (ALPS) working group; President Biden leaves office having made no material difference for the lives of the Sudanese people. Meanwhile, up to 24 million people are at risk of acute hunger with famine declared in some areas, and weapons continue to pour into Sudan into the hands of belligerents on both sides who continue to commit war crimes and harm civilians. The number of Sudanese refugees is growing in Chad, Egypt, South Sudan and Ethiopia where many face further human rights violations from their host state. South Sudan’s own moribund economy has been directly impacted by the halt of the flow of oil – causing further instability to an already precarious situation. Today, there is a greater risk of the conflict spreading and further destabilizing the Horn of Africa and harming even more civilians. 

What Trump Can Do

Despite all the challenges the international community faces, there are several steps the new Trump administration can take within the first 100 days to stop civilian suffering in Sudan. Prioritizing these actions now would meaningfully impact the conflict before it reaches the grim two-year milestone. 

First and most urgently, President Trump must appoint his own Presidential Envoy for Sudan. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has previously made a bipartisan demand for this and the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act codifies a Special Envoy for Sudan. Former Special Envoy Perriello—an energetic advocate—was never formally nominated nor was he seen as a senior Envoy with the ear of key Biden administration officials. As a result, he was hampered by a lack of influence with the external actors with whom he needed to negotiate. Outside of the U.S., counterparts did not view his appointment as a signal that Sudan was a top priority for President Biden. President Trump therefore must appoint a senior official who will be understood to truly be the administration’s emissary. Furthermore, formally nominating someone—and doing so early—would signal long term interest in addressing the crisis in Sudan, as the appointment will not be restricted by Senate rules on non-confirmed envoys. 

Secondly, the Trump administration must immediately and forcefully convey that there will be consequences to governments that choose to continue to send weapons in clear violation of the arms embargo on Darfur. They must also message that beyond violating the Darfur arms embargo, international humanitarian law (IHL) precludes sending weapons to other parts of Sudan, as all states are prohibited from transferring or permitting private actors to transfer weapons to a party of an armed conflict – whether a state or non-state armed group – where there is a clear risk that this would contribute to the commission of international humanitarian law violations. President Trump should have these conversations directly with leaders of countries who are either directly or through shell companies arming the belligerents. The Trump administration will have both open-source information such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch reports on these weapons flows as well as classified intelligence so that the leaders cannot deny responsibility. It’s imperative that this information be shared to avoid the lack of accountability that existed in the Biden administration. Furthermore, President Trump’s reported close personal relationship with authorities in the UAE could be seen as an advantage if they’re more amenable to responding to a request from him than the previous administration. 

In parallel, the administration must immediately begin laying the groundwork for an expansion of the U.N. Darfur arms embargo to cover the entirety of Sudan. The Security Council and its political composition make this a daunting task, and there are several key steps the Biden administration failed to take that would have laid the groundwork for success. However, there is a useful playbook to follow from the previous Trump administration when UN Ambassador Nikki Haley successfully led an effort to adopt an arms embargo on South Sudan. Haley herself made a call to the President of Sierra Leone and coordinated with like-minded UNSC partners to lobby Security Council governments and secure support. The senior level lobbying to multiple partners sent a strong signal that this was a U.S. priority. This level of diplomatic engagement was lacking under the Biden administration and President Trump would do well to instruct Cabinet officials to begin to signal that securing an expanded arms embargo is a top priority and work closely with Security Council partners to achieve it. 

It will also be important for the Trump administration to reset relationships with the African Union and African states on the Sudan portfolio. When the conflict broke out the U.S. instinctively turned to its Gulf partner, Saudi Arabia, to coordinate on addressing the conflict and initial talks were held in Jeddah. The Biden administration rationale was the close links several of the Gulf states had with Burhan and Hemedti; yet it was a mistake to do so as it resulted in sidelining the African Union. While the African Union has its flaws that have hindered its own response to the Sudan crisis, it is a vital partner for addressing the conflict—the AU also has mechanisms that if brought to bear could hold the belligerents accountable. For example if the African Union decided it was in the best interest of civilians in Sudan to expand the arms embargo, it is significantly less likely that China or Russia would veto the expansion. Furthermore, with more African countries directly impacted by this conflict, the AU has an incentive to see the conflict cease to harm civilians or risk further destabilizing the region. 

Finally, President Trump must prioritize responding to the humanitarian crisis. International aid agencies have been hindered in their response by bureaucratic obstacles from the Humanitarian Aid Commission, as well as security risks that make aid delivery difficult. Meanwhile Sudan’s Emergency Response Rooms—created and led by Sudanese themselves to respond to their own crisis—continue to be the first line of response for the majority of civilians in need of assistance. While previous USAID Administrator Samantha Power took some steps to help further support these Emergency Response Rooms, bureaucratic hurdles continue to prevent these groups from being funded sufficiently. President Trump should order USAID to present a plan that will allow the U.S. to have a more flexible approach to funding these local groups. The administration must also lobby Congress to ensure that there is sufficient humanitarian funding for Sudan, as the response remains woefully underfunded. Taking these concrete steps will greatly reduce the extent of famine in Sudan – unfortunately, it is already likely too late to prevent it all together. 

Conclusion:

While the new administration has multiple priorities, it is essential that addressing the conflict in Sudan be at the top of the list. Civilians in Sudan have endured suffering for nearly two years due to international indifference. Without more robust action, and a proactive approach from top to bottom, not only will civilians in Sudan continue to suffer but the risk for regional instability increases. President Trump must take advantage of his relationships with many of the proxies involved in the conflict to stop the weapons flow into Sudan and protect civilians.