Africa

The United Nations General Assembly’s resolution on ‘Correct the Map’ extends beyond the technical debate over map projections. It reveals a new arena of symbolic contestation in which countries of the Global South are seeking to renegotiate how the world is represented. The resolution encourages the use of equal-area projections, particularly Equal Earth. It neither prescribes a single map nor alters national borders but confers explicit UN legitimacy on a longstanding African demand: that the continent should not be depicted in education, the media or international institutions in ways that diminish its spatial weight relative to northern regions. Viewed in this light, the vote represents more than a geographical correction. It marks a political breakthrough in ‘visual governance’, where knowledge intersects with power and the image of the world presented to the public becomes a matter for negotiation within the multilateral system.   This initiative comes at a time when countries of the Global South are increasingly able to place questions of identity and representation on the international agenda. The resolution’s adoption demonstrates that soft power operates not only through culture and discourse but also through the standards that shape public knowledge. Changing a map projection will not, in itself, redirect investment or reconfigure supply chains. It does, however, provide a narrative instrument through which countries in Africa, Latin America and South Asia can highlight the scale of their markets, the reach of their corridors and their position within global resource and trade networks. ‘Visual emancipation’ thus offers a means of presenting the South’s geoeconomic weight anew: a framework that helps make its material sources of power more visible and encourages them to be taken more seriously.   Throughout history, maps have been among the most influential instruments of epistemic authority. They serve practical purposes in navigation and administration, while also determining what occupies the centre, what appears at the margins, how borders are drawn and how places are named. Cartography has therefore been inseparable from the state and empire. Maps have been used in surveying, taxation, military campaigns and the delineation of spheres of influence, helping to turn geographical space into a domain that can be administered and controlled. Every map carry, alongside its data, assumptions about purpose, scale, projection and the viewer’s standpoint. Reading a map consequently requires more than asking whether it is accurate. It demands a more political set of questions: accurate for what purpose, who chose this way of depicting the world, and what perceptions does that choice entrench when it becomes a widely accepted standard?   Since the sixteenth century, the Mercator projection has occupied an exceptional position in world cartography. Designed primarily for navigation, it preserves angles and represents constant bearings as straight lines but increasingly exaggerates area towards the poles. The problem lies in its adoption as a general image of the world in classrooms, the media and digital platforms, including settings where comparing areas is the principal objective, rather than in its use for the task for which it was designed. The consequences are particularly clear in the comparison between Africa and Greenland. On many Mercator maps, they appear similar in size, whereas Africa covers approximately 30.37 million square kilometres, nearly fourteen times Greenland’s roughly 2.17 million square kilometres. Repeated across generations, this image does not create political marginalisation on its own but supplies it with a visual language consistent with the North’s centrality in the global imagination.   The Correct the Map resolution, led by Togo on behalf of the African Group and supported by the African Union, brings this objection into an international institutional framework. The General Assembly adopted the text contained in document A/80/L.104 with 164 countries voting in favour, the United States alone voting against, and six abstentions. The political significance of this outcome lies in the breadth of support beyond Africa and the countries traditionally associated with the Global South, encompassing European states and international powers with divergent interests. The resolution is not legally binding and does not affect sovereignty, borders or the legal status of disputed territories. It does, however, call on educational institutions, the media, international organisations and digital platforms to give serious consideration to projections better suited to depicting relative areas. Its principal strength therefore lies in transforming ‘visual justice’ from an African advocacy campaign into an international norm capable of wider adoption.

For over two decades, The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) stood as the clearest example of what concentrated donor power could do: one country's political will, translated into billions of dollars a year, credited with saving more lives than any single global health program in history. That era is now ending, not through a managed transition but through an abrupt, largely unplanned withdrawal that began within days of the second Trump administration taking office in January 2025. The story that follows is not simply about cuts to HIV/AIDS funding, but it is about what happens when the architecture of global health financing loses its dominant pillar, who scrambles to fill the resulting vacuum, whether the countries left exposed can build the fiscal and institutional capacity to stand on their own, and whether the system that emerges is more fragile or more resilient than the one it replaces. The transition is already producing real costs: closed clinics, disrupted treatment, and rising infections in countries that had spent years bringing their epidemics under control. Besides, it is also accelerating financing reforms, regional cooperation, and domestic manufacturing that donor dependence had, for twenty years, made largely unnecessary. Both of these things are true at once, and this analysis traces both.

The global trading system underwent a fundamental transformation in July 2026, as the United States abandoned limited sector-specific protection in favour of a complex, multi-tiered tariff architecture that turned access to its domestic market into an instrument of economic and political pressure. Four major decisions converged within that single month. The first was the outright repeal of the de minimis exemption, which had allowed small consignments valued below eight hundred dollars to enter the country duty-free. The second was the application of the Section 301 forced-labour tariffs across two distinct bands, imposing 10% and 12.5% according to the compliance record of each partner state. The third was the activation of Section 338, a statutory provision that had lain dormant since the 1940s, to levy 50% duties on a range of Canadian goods. The fourth was the approval of a phased escalation reaching 200% on imports of generic pharmaceuticals.   The consequences of this package extended well beyond the raising of customs duties. They amounted to a comprehensive re-engineering of rules of origin and customs compliance requirements, which in turn altered the cost calculus of every manufacturer and supplier across global supply chains. This new reality pushed firms to search for alternative routes designed not merely to reduce transport costs, but to change the identity of the country of origin itself and so escape punitive duties. That search is precisely what turned the Middle East from a transit corridor into an industrial and logistical node positioned to play a pivotal role on the new map of world trade.   This analysis therefore aims to unpack the effects of the July 2026 package across three connected levels: its domestic cost to the American economy in terms of inflation, compliance friction and the feasibility of reshoring; the realignment of trading partners and the trade diversion and origin leakage that follow from it; and finally its direct implications for the economies of the Middle East and North Africa, together with quantitative estimates of price, investment and shipping trends through the end of the decade.

The Chinese Government, on Feb. 14, 2026, issued decisions abolishing 100% of customs duties on exports from 53 African countries. This step marks a significant shift in the trajectory of Beijing’s historic relationship with the African continent. This relationship began 70 years ago with major infrastructure ventures such as the construction of the Tazara Railway in the 1970s. It gradually evolved into an increasingly intricate framework of reciprocal economic integration.     This evolution has been reflected in the substantial expansion of bilateral trade, which reached a historic high of USD 348.1 billion in 2025, with annual growth of 17.7%. Through this new tariff-exemption framework, Beijing is voluntarily relinquishing approximately USD 1.4 billion in annual customs revenue upon the regime’s implementation, a move that constitutes a long-term geoeconomic investment aimed at reinforcing the stability of supply chains. This shift may reshape the global trade landscape and further position the African continent at the centre of intensifying competition for industrial resources and clean-energy technologies.     Accordingly, this analysis examines the strategic dimensions of this new trade regime by focusing on the updated structural dynamics of bilateral trade and their actual impact on Africa’s trade balance; the global competition to secure supply chains for critical minerals and the resulting implications for local industrialisation ambitions; and, finally, an assessment of the countervailing economic and political strategies adopted by Western blocs as they seek to reposition themselves and respond to expanding influence across the continent.

In a few months, the Trump administration is expected to push Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) to sign a peace deal which is supposed to be followed by a bilateral minerals’ agreement between the U.S. and the DRC. The agreement puts some parties in an advantageous position while leaves others with a less fortunate fate. The U.S. is supposed to gain economically and politically by this agreement especially when it comes to its rivalry with China. While the DRC is expected to gain in the short-term leveraging the “conflict minerals” narrative, the long-term consequences are not necessarily desirable. The EU is left with the undesirable situation. The bloc will either adjust its policies toward the DRC’s minerals or remain in a situation where a clash with the Trump administration is possible. While a direct military confrontation between the two powers remains improbable, a proxy war in which M23 rebels are a main actor is possible. Additionally, with minerals gaining increasing geoeconomic relevance, Trump has eyed several countries including Ukraine, and the DRC, who could be his next target?

Recent decisions by U.S. President Donald Trump cutting aid to foreign countries and dismantling the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) have sparked global backlash. While the impact of cutting aid is substantial, the broader significance of this move cannot be overlooked. It reflects a deeper shift in the Trump administration’s foreign policy strategy. But what are the implications for the U.S. and its adversaries?

Despite a 2009 pledge to mobilise $100 billion annually by 2020, this commitment remains largely unmet, hindering adaptation and mitigation efforts. The 2015 Paris Agreement, while aiming to limit global warming, faces implementation challenges due to insufficient pledges and a lack of accountability. Developed countries, bearing historical responsibility for the climate crisis, must assume a leading role in mitigation and provide adequate financial support. Unfulfilled pledges perpetuate a cycle of vulnerability in the Global South, exacerbating the impacts of extreme weather events and rising sea levels. Climate change poses a challenge to sustainable growth in a number of industries and is not just an environmental concern. It is also an economic one. Insufficient investment for climate change exacerbates problems including growing debt in developing countries, decreased agricultural productivity, food insecurity, and volatility in sectors like tourism. These issues, which are linked to global accords like the Paris Agreement, are pressing and need to be addressed.

China is known for using its economic power to infiltrate developing countries, especially those experiencing economic shocks, through providing unconditional loans and increasing its investments in infrastructure. Moreover, China avoids the risk of investing in fragile countries or countries torn out by civil wars, as it might not be a safe environment for long-term investments. In Libya, China has maintained the same policy and avoided playing a crucial role in affecting the outcomes of the Libyan conflict. It, however, preferred to maintain a strong connection with the different local parties engaged in this conflict to preserve its interests and ensure having an economic role in the future of the country. This analysis is going to deeply explore the Chinese role in Libya along with future prospects.

The world is currently experiencing rapid and significant geopolitical shifts, with rising global powers like the BRICS Group leading the charge to recalibrate the balance of influence within the Global Financial System. The recent expansion of the BRICS Group, now including 10 nations following the accession of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Iran, and Ethiopia, underscores their growing influence. This bloc is unwavering in its determination to challenge the dominance of the U.S. dollar and to overhaul a global financial infrastructure that it sees as deeply flawed. The BRICS nations argue that the current system, with its structural flaws, serves as a tool for exerting political and economic pressure and contributes to the fragmentation of economies and regions by weaponizing trade and financial constraints.   The BRICS+ nations acknowledge that Dollar Dominance is underpinned by entrenched factors, most notably, the U.S. military power and global confidence in the U.S. legal and regulatory frameworks. Nevertheless, these nations are actively exploring alternatives to reduce their reliance on the dollar, aiming to bolster their financial sovereignty. In pursuit of this goal, BRICS has ramped up efforts to reduce dependence on the dollar by employing innovative mechanisms. Chief among these is the proposal to issue a new, collective currency and establish a multilateral digital settlement and payment platform, dubbed as the “BRICS Bridge.” This platform is poised to foster greater trade integration among member states, particularly as some nations within the bloc, like Russia, face sanctions and exclusion from global systems such as the SWIFT System -The Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication-.   All eyes are now on the upcoming BRICS Summit, set to take place in October in Kazan. The summit is expected to showcase tangible steps toward implementing these initiatives, which could potentially redefine the structure of international trade and finance. The critical question remains: Will Russia and its BRICS allies break the dollar's stranglehold over the global financial order?

The Israeli military has reportedly launched a recruitment campaign offering asylum seekers residency in exchange for their service in the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF). The Israeli government already struggling with a shortage in manpower needed for its war on multiple fronts including in Gaza and Lebanon. While this policy is not totally pioneered by Israelis, it faces serious legal and humanitarian repercussions. Additionally, it adds a layer of uncertainty to the fate of refugees and asylum seekers in Europe who might face the same fate as asylum seekers in Israel given the ongoing Russia-Ukraine War and problems with conscription.

Turkey has a deep interest in the Horn of Africa and considers it as the gate to the East of the continent. Since 2011, Turkey has increased its humanitarian aid to Somalia, signed military and economic agreements and contributed to the process of state-building through allowing its companies to construct infrastructure, schools, hospital, and governmental premises. In 2017, Turkey has opened the largest military base, known as TURKSOM, beyond its borders to fully qualify the Somali army to deter the threat arising from the Al-Shabab movement that has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United States (U.S.) since 2008.   In February 2024, Turkey signed significant military and economic agreements with Somalia, allowing it to a key player in the politics of Horn of Africa. According to the 10-year pact, Turkey will help Somalia to defend its maritime against piracy, smuggling, and foreign intervention from Ethiopia. Turkey is also obliged by the terms of this agreement to train and rebuild the Somali naval forces. The process of rebuilding includes weaponizing the Somali naval forces with Turkish weapons manufactured locally. These weapons include frigates built mainly for the Somali navy, which means that the Turkish military exports will witness an increase of demand on its products in the forthcoming years. This would motivate other countries to buy Turkish weapons, especially if Turkish weapons proved its efficiency in securing Somali maritime. These agreements also enable Turkey to work on extracting natural resources from the Somali territorial water in return for an agreed-upon percentage for Turkey. Some reports revealed that Turkey will receive 30% of the revenues of the Somali economic zone. Somali airspace will also be fully opened for Turkish military use. This analysis explores Turkish motivations of signing this agreement and the challenges that it might confront while implementing it.

The global economy operates under cyclical phases of monetary tightening and easing, often contrary to the business cycle. In periods when business activity reaches its lowest ebb and teeters on the edge of recession, expansionary monetary policy is implemented to redirect this downward trajectory, averting a slide into economic contraction. This approach prevents the economy from experiencing a sudden surge in growth, which could push it toward unsustainable heights. Conversely, contractionary monetary policy is deployed to rein in unchecked growth, preventing it from spiralling into inflationary pressures that could erode economic progress and deplete citizens' savings. By tempering both extremes, monetary policy strives to maintain a stable path of moderate growth that ensures long-term national economic health without tipping into volatility or stagnation.   Monetary policy tools tend to operate similarly across global economies, with one critical exception: the influence of the U.S. Federal Reserve. The Fed’s actions transcend the U.S. market, shaping global financial conditions. For instance, a decision to hike interest rates in the United States has far-reaching effects on consumer spending globally, even if these impacts manifest indirectly. This global ripple is acutely felt in African nations, where populations are particularly vulnerable to the consequences of U.S. monetary tightening, notably during interest rate hikes. This analysis, therefore, seeks to explore the relationship between the Federal Reserve’s tightening of monetary policy over the past three years and the subsequent waves of instability that have spread across the African continent. These effects continue to play out at the time of writing, despite recent signals that the Fed may shift once again toward a more expansionary stance.