Trump Ushers New Era, Undoing Bretton Woods Tools
I was browsing through
motherland Tanzania’s local news when I got inspired to consider some potential
opportunities for Africa in the context of the monumental global shifts ushered
in by this Trump era. In this article I simply touch on a few UN
instrumentalities sighted for scrutiny by President Trump. The International
Monetary Fund and the World Bank (IMF & WB) are key UN bodies exercising
far-reaching global economic and policy governance over developing nations,
imposing objectives and strategies formulated and dictated by external advanced
countries. Online reports indicate that Trump is casting a gaze at these UN
institutions, alongside his recent decision to defund and withdraw the US from
the World Health Organisation (WHO). A close and thorough examination of IMF
and the WB operations is most warranted could turn out to be God-sent for
Africa and many developing countries. Something akin to Elon Musk’s audit of
USAID fund operations. Any serious analyst who has taken a glance at the
workings of structural adjustment programs implemented or funded by the IMF
& the WB in Africa will see the logic of such scrutiny unless they are keen
to have Africa shackled.
So we see President Trump astonishing the world as his Administration engages in shaking Bretton Woods UN institutions among other things, in my view Africa countries need to promptly and appropriately position themselves to make the most of opportunities out of this emerging global political space – there are huge long-term economic, social and political ramifications for the wellbeing of African societies.
The Trump review of the US role
and relationship with these Bretton Woods financial institutions flows on from
one of the Trumpian policy think tank Project 2025 who wants the USA to
withdraw from the IMF and WB altogether (see references below). Other reports
noted the absence of Trump Administration high level Treasury Secretary to the
last G20 Meeting held in South Africa, some commentators saw it as a possible
indication that a new rules based order is emerging. A potential diminution or complete
reforming of the IMF and the WB if carried out presents fresh and hopeful
potential new beginnings for Africa. But such opportunity must be seized –
action is essential, it must be initiated by each country for the betterment of
their local populations.
Many analysts over more than
three decades have strongly questioned the role of the IMF and the WB in
imposing wasteful and corrupt loans on many developing nations. Considering
recent revelations about misuse of USAID monies, it makes sense that the Trump
Administration would wish to scrutinise IMF and WB practices given that US is a
major financial contributor to these institutions. Moreover, there is a strong
documented critique by many expert researchers on negative practices of these
institutions connected to funding developing countries (see sample academic
references below for your exploration).
If Trump succeeds in bringing the
IMF and the WB to account that could be a great service both for Western tax-payers
who fund these institutions, but also a huge contribution to developing
countries. Why? This is because even though the IMF and the WB may have
appropriately served Europe to emerge from the economic ravages following World
War 11, these institutions imposed severe structural adjustment programs on
developing countries post-independence often in ways that undermined the
development agenda. Not simply that the World Bank long abandoned economic
development strategies to embrace New Right economics. But also under their
watch we saw imposition of corrupt loans that did not benefit locals on the
ground across developing countries. In fact loans rarely seemed to deliver
efficiencies, let alone value-for-money, accountability, transparency and sound
governance that their neo-liberal programs espoused. Ample literature indicates
these organisations are mainly tools facilitating neo-colonisation instead of development and governance Sub-Sahara Africa. It is also not clear what portion of those funds reach Africa, and how much is utilised in the donor countries.
There is no shortage of
literature on questionable conditional and corrupt revolving loans with limited
positive impacts imposed on the likes of Sub-Saharan Africa by the IMF and the
WB. To make things worse, the burden to
repay these loans fall back on poor peasants and low income urban communities
in Africa. Local populations have no say in how those loans are used.
If the recent exposure of certain
harmful and inappropriate USAID funded operations contrary to US public
expectations, does anyone doubt that an IMF and WB review is a sound way to go?
Africa’s financial dependence on these Bretton Woods institutions are
strategies that keep Sub-Sahara Africa chained and consigned to neo-colonial
subjugated relations that see less effective use of her own resources.
This dependence is also unhelpful
to former colonial European countries. For example, if Sub-Sahara Africa
unleashes its economic development potential, this will mutually assist Europe,
US, and Eastern countries because a growth in Africa’s Middle Class and
purchasing power means advanced nations can grow future export markets to
Africa as well. In a nutshell, it is does not need to be a zero sum game.
It should also be noted that some
of President Trump MAGA supporters could be alarmed to learn that IMF & the
WB monies rarely deliver tangible transformative outcomes for locals on the
ground – so scrutinising how these institutions control and regulate their
loans could be useful info to the US public. For example some of the Christian
Evangelical MAGAs subscribe to the notion of a Jubilee period roughly translated
that after every 49 years a Judeo-Christian ethic requires that populations and
their land are restored and released from bondage (example see Leviticus 25:
8-38). So it makes sense as not all social conservatives wish to perpetuate
exploitative and inhumane asymmetrical relations.
So as the US interrogates and
retreats from globalist institutions this offers great opportunity for
Sub-Saharan countries to take more responsibility in creating local solutions.
It is an opportunity to break the unnecessary chains of dependence from unfair
and unproductive conditional loans that are regularly imposed by the IMF and
the WB. Not that Africa should retreat from engagement with the US, Europe,
Middle and Far East, no. But let
us focus on growing positive and sensible ways of relating that are mutually
productive. That starts with generating more home generated solutions
informed as much by our local people within and outside Africa.
Tanzania Instance in Under-utilisation of her Diaspora Resource
Take motherland Tanzania as an
instance. It is now commonly agreed that the country could make better use of
her Diaspora communities helping build the nation. Yet, Tanzanian-born Diaspora
is still hampered from increasing greater economic participation due to
continued legislative delays in passing the Diaspora Tanzanite Card reforms and
related measures. This is also holding back potential multiplier economic
benefits to the nation. Although the Diaspora makes monetary transfers
supporting their extended families, there is so much more they can do if the
Bills currently in Parliament are enacted into legislation.
Other far advanced countries in
the world allow free movement of their people around the world which plays a
part in fostering economic development. Tanzania’s Diaspora is a potential
under-utilised resource! We need to shift our thinking and recognise that
blessings come in many packages that on face value we may not see dollar signs
attached to it! (In a previous article I discussed in greater details how other
global nations including some African countries make use of Diaspora and labour
movement to contribute to their economies (Link to previous article detailing Diaspora-friendly citizenship arrangements across the globe).
Tanzanian Diaspora cannot
optimise participation in economic activities in the motherland when local
structures hamper participation. Instead of our reliance on international
donors and global banks, we should also be responsible by unleashing our
God-given resources such as our Diaspora. Failure to recognise the Diaspora as
great human and capital resource we already have is an example of ways we play
a part in fostering neo-colonial arrangements and mentalities because we
someone else can offer us better solutions for our development. Why constrain
our own Diaspora people in economic participation? It does not make sense.
There is a greater opportunity to modernise our thinking and value what we have
and use it. If more Diaspora build houses in Dar or Dodoma, that means more
jobs and business for folks in construction industry and suppliers. If more
Diaspora open Bank accounts in Tanzania, it means more money in circulation, it
means more access to foreign exchange. You can name many more activities here,
and imagine potential for everyday economic multiplier effects.
US Gaze on WHO, & Push for Better Population Health
Sub-Sahara Africa can choose to
now pay some attention to matters involving the WHO against the background of
long existing arrangements being upended. The change has culminated into Trump
Administration recent defunding of the WHO and swift withdrawal of US
membership due to differences in some policy and clinical responses to issues
such as C-19 and much more. Such reservations are not new, even African leaders
such as the late Tanzania President Magufuli (a scientist) held strong
reservations about efficacy and validity of some of the WHO approaches in
responding to the C-19 outbreak. Some common themes about freedom of countries
and individuals relating to determine movement, exercise of liberties about
treatments and access to certain vaccines.
The decisive US withdrawal from
WHO in my view offers opportunity for small countries like Tanzania to review
any WHO related local programs and guidelines to ensure safety standards and
practices are evidence-based and driven by safe and ethical science. This is
not to say the WHO doesn’t do some good work. But considering the US is
concerned enough to exit WHO, and significantly taking account recent DOGE
revelations that even USAID money was being misused to support harmful research
project(s) ala C-19, then reviewing the validity and efficacy of local
Africa-based WHO programs is crucial for community safety.
This is an opportune time because
before Trump resumed office, the consequences for African leaders questioning
WHO practices may have been severe. Now RF Kennedy Jr US Health Secretary is leading
the call for community safety, and with Trump Executive Orders exiting the WHO,
there is more weight to scrutinise health institutions like WHO to ensure
community safety and wellbeing of African populations remain paramount.
A related point, while RF Kennedy
Jr has embarked on making the USA healthy again, policy wise this is a great
opportunity for Tanzania and Sub-Saharan Africa to look again at any harmful
global imposition of GM (genetically modified) seeds that are replacing or hold
potential to obliterate local African seed stock. We also need to remain aware
that while some of the MAGA Trump followers want to see cleaner food farming
production, safe medication and so forth, it is also the case that big US and
global multinational forces remain keen in their quest to control seeds. If
they succeed in eliminating some of African key and resilient traditional seed
stocks, that in itself is an instrument that leaves poor countries at the mercy
of multinationals and oligarchs.
As the US under Trump is involved
in these current global political, economic and social contestations reshaping
the world, no one is going to hand to Africa rights on a silver platter to
determine how Africans make the most in promoting the wellbeing of their
countries and populations. Africa must take this opportunity to favourably and
productively position themselves in these contested emerging global arrangements.
Africa has complained long enough
about being in neo-colonial shackles. But the quest for freedom means we must
take more responsibility and continually generate local solutions, and not
forever simply rely on UN bodies, Washington and New York, London, Paris, or
Middle and Far East capitals on things we can manage ourselves. There will
still always be plenty of space to engage and learn from advanced countries,
and plenty to collaborate on, but not the narrow IMF and WB straitjackets,
and not the neo-colonial way. To draw from the ancients, the Red Sea is
parting, we can choose to cross as ancients did, or remain in neo-colonial
shackles.
Suggestions
As the Trump Administration
decisively breaks away from yesteryears’ globalisation arrangements
- African countries and their leadership need to take a responsibility to ensure the wellbeing of their populations are better served by revised and fair global/multilateral structures
- The less Sub-Saharan Africa relies on the IMF/WB and their donors for funds, the more likely we could see reinforcement of asymmetrical neo-colonial practices
- African countries could benefit if they periodically and routinely review the validity and efficacy of local Africa-based WHO programs to ensure community safety (against the backdrop of audits showing even USAID money has been used for certain harmful health research operations ala C-19)
- Review any harmful global imposition of GM seeds that are replacing or completely obliterating local seeds
- Finalise legislation pertaining to the Diaspora Tanzanite Card, and in connection with land and immigration amendments as a priority
- Authorise the Diaspora community to open Bank account faster, including using identity documentation held in the country of their residence
- Routinely review any WHO related local programs and guidelines to ensure safety based at least on evidence-based scientific practices, as a follow on to questions raised some harmful uses noted USA’s USAID “assistance programs”.
So much can be said about the breath and weight of changes that are in play during this Trump Era. Many more UN and multilateral bodies can be discussed. But for the purpose of this article, I have done my little bit. The opportunity ushered in by the conditions connected with World War 11 and aftermath saw emergence of African leaders who struggled for our independence. And now as the seemingly ‘unilateral’ Trump reforms looms large, the space still offers a once in a century chance for Africa to break from the never ending shackles of IMF, the World Bank and donors who insist on asymmetrical unproductive burdensome loans. Use the opportunity generated by the contestation between these Bretton Wood institutions and the Trump Administration to better position African countries and populations into fairer global arrangements and relations. Seize the moment.
References
Bretton Woods Project. Project 2025 takes on the World Bank and IMF –
harbinger of an uncertain new era of geopolitics? 16 October 2024. https://www.brettonwoodsproject.org/2024/10/project-2025-takes-on-the-world-bank-and-imf-harbinger-of-an-uncertain-new-era-of-geopolitics/
USAID, Africa’s Silent Destroyer –
Interview with Dr. Arikana Chihombori-Quao, former
African Union Ambassador to the US.17
March 2025. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COTdbOPceLQ
Aina, T. 1999. ‘West and Central
Africa: Social Policy for Development and Reconstruction’. In Transnational
Policies: The New Development Challenges of Globalisation, Morales-Gomez,
D. (ed.) London: Earthscan. Pp. 69-87.
Chachage, S. and Mbilinyi, M. (eds.)
2003. Against Neo-Liberalism: Gender, Democracy and Development.
Tanzania Gender Networking Programme publication. Dar-es-salaam: E & D
Limited.
Gill, S. ‘Neo-liberalism and the Shift
Towards a US-Centred Transnational Hegemony’. In Restructuring Hegemony
in the Global Political Economy, the Rise of Transnational Neo-liberalism in
the 1980s. Overbeek, H. (ed.) London: Routledge. Pp. 246-282.
Jilberto, A. 1993. ‘The Laboratory
Experiment of International Neo-liberalism’. In Restructuring Hegemony
in the Global Political Economy, The Rise of Transnational neo-liberalism in
the 1980s. Overbeek, H (ed.) London: Routledge. Pp 58-78.
Kiwara, A. 2003. Against
Neo-Liberalism: Gender, Democracy and Development. Tanzania Gender
Networking Programme publication. (Chachage, S. and Mbilinyi, M. eds.).
Dar-es-Salaam: E & D Limited. Pp. 182-195.
Morales-Gomez, D. (ed.) 1999. Transnational
Policies: The New Development Challenges of Globalisation. London:
Earthscan. Pp. 165-196.
Overbeek, H., 1993. ‘Preface’. In Restructuring
Hegemony in the Global Political Economy, the Rise of Transnational
Neo-liberalism in the 1980s. London: Routledge. Pp ix-xii
Overbeek, H. and van der Pijl, K. 1993.
‘Restructuring Capital and Restructuring Hegemony: Neo-Liberalism and the
Unmaking of the Post-War Order’. In Restructuring Hegemony in the
Global Political Economy, the Rise of Transnational Neo-liberalism in the 1980s.
London: Routledge. Pp 1-27.
Rusimbi, M., 2003. ‘SAP for Whom?
Grassroots Perspectives. In Against Neo-Liberalism: Gender, Democracy
and Development. Tanzania Gender Networking Programme publication.
Dar-es-Salaam: E & D Limited. Pp. 99-109.
Solomon, R. 1999. The
Transformation of the world economy. 2nd ed. Basingstoke:
Macmillan.
Wangwe, S. Semboja, H. and Tibandebage,
P. 1998. Transitional Economic Policy and Policy Options in Tanzania. Dar
es Salaam: Mkuki wa Nyota Publishers.
