[Senate Hearing 119-104]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 119-104
EAST AFRICA & THE HORN: AT A TURNING POINT
OR BREAKING POINT?
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 13, 2025
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via http://www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
60-820 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho, Chairman
PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
DAVID MCCORMICK, Pennsylvania CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
STEVE DAINES, Montana CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut
BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee TIM KAINE, Virginia
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
MIKE LEE, Utah CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
RAND PAUL, Kentucky BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
TED CRUZ, Texas CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
RICK SCOTT, Florida TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
JOHN CORNYN, Texas
Christopher M. Socha, Republican Staff Director
Damian Murphy, Staff Director
John Dutton, Chief Clerk
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Risch, Hon. James E. U.S. Senator From Idaho..................... 1
Shaheen, Hon. Jeanne, U.S. Senator From New Hampshire............ 3
Meservey, Joshua, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, Washington, DC 5
Prepared Statement........................................... 6
Gavin, Michelle, Ralph Bunche Senior Fellow for Africa Policy
Studies,
Council on Foreign Relations, New York, NY..................... 10
Prepared Statement........................................... 12
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Responses of Mr. Joshua Meservey to Questions Submitted by
Senator
James E. Risch................................................. 36
Speech Given at Peking University, Beijing, China by Dr. William
Ruto, President of the Republic of Kenya, Dated April 23, 2025. 37
Article From KBC Digital Regarding President William Ruto's Visit
to China, Dated April 23, 2025................................. 49
(iii)
EAST AFRICA & THE HORN: AT A TURNING
POINT OR BREAKING POINT?
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 13, 2025
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. James E.
Risch presiding.
Present: Senators Risch [presiding], Ricketts, McCormick,
Cruz, Cornyn, Shaheen, Coons, Kaine, Booker, Van Hollen, and
Rosen.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
The Chairman. The United States Senate Foreign Relations
Committee will come to order.
Good morning, everyone. We welcome you all here this
morning for what we believe to be--will be an important and
informative hearing. We welcome all of you who are here in the
audience.
The rules are pretty clear here. We are glad to have you
here. There will be no protesting in here other than--and will
be subject to the usual rules and met with zero tolerance,
arrest, and banning from the committee.
There are people suffering from this right now who made
that mistake early on, but have not been back since. We, like I
said, enjoy having everybody here, but this is business in the
United States that needs to be conducted uninterrupted.
Today, what we bring to you, the distinguished ranking
member and I have worked hard to identify areas that really
need to be probed and today we are going to probe, arguably,
one of the most difficult and frustrating places on the planet
and that is Africa and specifically eastern Africa.
All of us here know that the United States has a clear
national security and economic interest in the east--in East
Africa and the Horn of Africa region. The region borders key
maritime trade routes through the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden and
hosts a significant U.S. military presence at our base in
Djibouti.
The U.S. also conducts robust counterterrorism operations,
largely, focused on Somalia in partnership with Kenya and
others in the region, but in recent years, violent conflicts in
Ethiopia, Sudan, and Somalia have destabilized the region.
These conflicts provide fertile ground for violent extremist
groups like Al-Shabaab, ISIS, and the Houthis.
They enable malign actors like China, Iran, and Russia and
devastate local populations and U.S. national security alike.
Sudan, in particular, is a crisis.
Too few Americans recognize that as the world's deadliest
ongoing conflict. The Sudanese people are enduring atrocities
on a staggering scale--genocide in Darfur, mass displacement,
and famine across multiple regions.
Sudan is a hotbed of instability and a direct threat to
U.S. national security interests. There are no good options or
easy outcomes, but that only heightens the need for U.S.
attention and leadership.
Over the last 4 years, the U.S. reactions to this crisis
and many others on the continent were fragmented, reactive, and
ineffective.
President Trump and this administration have already acted
to better protect U.S. national security in the region.
In President Trump's first term, his administration engaged
in talks with Kenya over a potential free trade agreement, a
first for sub-Saharan Africa, and now Secretary Rubio and other
senior officials have ramped up engagement and confronted
threats from Al-Shabaab and the Islamic State head on.
These efforts cannot be siloed. They must be part of a
broad strategic effort to protect American interests in Africa
while also protecting the U.S. taxpayer's pocketbook. That
means being clear eyed about our potential and existing
partners in the region.
In many cases, these governments are not wholly legitimate,
which raises the question of whether engagement is worth the
cost.
Take, for example, South Sudan. Its government exists based
on a peace agreement that its signatories routinely violate.
The U.S. played a central role in the country's creation, a
legacy that has carried a financial cost well above $10 billion
in assistance since independence in 2011.
Yet, the returns on this investment in terms of securing
sustainable peace and a functional state are marginal at best
and, arguably, diminishing. Additionally, Ethiopia, Kenya, and
Uganda each face serious domestic challenges that severely
limit what U.S. investment can do.
This fact, unfortunately, demands our restraint. Many
African nations maintain troubling ties with China including
key national security partners. Just last month, President Ruto
declared that Kenya, a major non-NATO ally, and China are co-
architects of a new world order.
That is not just alignment to China; it is allegiance. I
submit for the record the text of that speech. I am going to
enter it in the record at the conclusion of the hearing that
describes this.
Relying on leaders who embrace Beijing so openly is an
error. It is time to reassess our relationship with Kenya and
others who forge tight bonds with China.
It is not just an embracement of China, but also the ``new
world order.'' Still, there are countries where meaningful
engagement is possible, but only with sober judgment and clear-
eyed realism.
We must stop building U.S. policy in Africa around
individual leaders and instead focus on strengthening
institutions, expanding private sector ties, and empowering the
region's young and dynamic populations.
We hold this hearing at a moment of profound urgency, but
also real opportunity. By tailoring our strategy and spending
to align with the potential of our partners in the region, we
can build stronger partnerships that serve both Africa and U.S.
national interests, ultimately making America safer, stronger,
and more prosperous.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. With
that, I turn to our distinguished ranking member Senator
Sheehan.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEANNE SHAHEEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Like you, I am delighted that we are able to hold this
hearing today.
I want to welcome our witnesses, and I think there is a lot
of agreement on both sides of the aisle about the importance of
Africa to the United States and the need to engage more there.
The United States does have a critical role to play on the
continent. Just last month Rwanda and the Democratic Republic
of Congo signed a declaration of principles on ending a brutal
30-year war.
It has not quite ended yet. However, it is a positive step
and it is the result of deliberate diplomatic work that has
been carried out over many years on a bipartisan basis.
Unfortunately, this administration's cuts to foreign aid
programs have been very damaging when we look at what we need
to do on the continent of Africa.
While reports from the State Department indicate that
lifesaving aid continues to flow, what my staff that traveled
to Africa 3 weeks ago saw on the ground was very different and
we have some pictures that they took from that trip.
[Photos shown.]
Senator Shaheen. This is a clinic that was for an HIV/AIDS
prevention site for girls in South Africa. Sadly, as you can
see, it has been closed because all of the prevention
activities around HIV/AIDS on the continent have been shut
down.
This is a photo, also in South Africa, of a clinic for
vulnerable children, again, around addressing HIV/AIDS. It has
also been shut down as the result of the stop in foreign
assistance.
This final picture is of a hospital in Angola where USAID
used to provide ready-to-use therapeutic foods to address
starvation and famine, and while there are still cans--those
are formula. Those are not the ready-to-use therapeutic foods.
They are totally out of those.
I hope our witnesses today will talk about the impact that
cuts to those lifesaving aid programs have on the security, not
just of the people of Africa, but of the United States because,
as we know, what happens there does not stay in Africa.
We see the impact here in the United States. Rationing HIV
drugs gives the virus a chance to mutate into drug-resistant
strains. I also hope you will talk about the competition for
influence in Africa between the United States and China.
The chairman mentioned that in his remarks. I think it is
something that we are seeing, and this is a map that was done
in 2023 that shows the influence of China in Africa.
I wish we had the one that we had in the Armed Services
Committee several years ago that compares China's impact in
Africa to the United States, because they are eating our lunch
there and you can see the red is where the PRC has really put a
focus on the countries in Africa.
There is--you can see the Chinese base in Djibouti. They
are--it shows the 2,000 military troops that are deployed in
Africa by the Chinese and 1,775 peacekeepers that support four
U.N. peacekeeping operations. Again, Chinese.
It is significant that we are not competing either
militarily or diplomatically in Africa and now on the foreign
assistance front.
One stark example of this is the Lobito Corridor Project.
It is a U.S.-backed initiative that we have spent years
developing and investing in. It would create a route for
Central Africa's natural resources to flow east out to the
Atlantic.
Meanwhile, China has a competing railway project in
Tanzania that would send these natural resources east out to
the Indian Ocean. I think I said that wrong--it would send the
resources west out to the Atlantic.
It is in our interest and those of the people in the region
for the United States to come out on top in these situations.
One piece of legislation that has shown its value time and
again is the Women, Peace, and Security Act. This is
legislation that passed with bipartisan support in both houses.
It was signed into law by President Trump during his first
term.
Our armed forces have made great use of it, especially in
AFRICOM. It gives us a real advantage over our Chinese
competitors and, sadly, this is a program that Secretary
Hegseth has decided to discontinue because he claims it is a
DEI program, which it is not, but where WPS authorities allow
us to gather intelligence from women and families we can
counter violent extremism and we can advance our interests and
deepen economic investment in East Africa and the Horn.
As you talk about the opportunities in the region, I hope
you will lay out some of the economic and foreign policy tools
we can use to achieve success. I look forward to hearing your
thoughts.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Shaheen. I appreciate
that.
We have two very distinguished witnesses with us today. We
are going to start by hearing from Mr. Joshua Meservey, who is
a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute where he focuses on
great power competition in Africa, African geopolitics, and
counterterrorism.
He was previously a research fellow for Africa at the
Heritage Foundation, worked at the Atlantic Council's Africa
Center for the U.S. Army Special Operations Command, and for
Church World Service in Nairobi, Kenya.
He is a returned Peace Corps volunteer who served in Zambia
and extended his service there to work for the U.S. Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention.
Mr. Meservey holds a master of arts in law and diplomacy
from the Fletcher School at Tufts University, and the B.A. in
history from the Templeton Honors College at Eastern
University.
Mr. Meservey, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF JOSHUA MESERVEY, SENIOR FELLOW, HUDSON INSTITUTE,
WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Meservey. Thank you.
Chairman Risch, Ranking Member Shaheen, and members of the
committee, thank you for the honor of testifying today and for
your attention to an important region of the world.
My name is Joshua Meservey. I am a senior fellow at Hudson
Institute. My views are my own and do not represent an official
position of Hudson.
East Africa is important to the prosperity and safety of
Americans. Because of its natural resources, large populations,
and fast-growing economies, it has strong potential as a U.S.
investment destination, a market for American goods, and for
potential technological breakthroughs.
The region's strategic importance is inescapable as well.
It commands an important shipping choke point and lane through
the Red Sea, which also has a dense concentration of submarine
cables.
It abuts Saudi Arabia and Yemen, and Djibouti hosts
American, Chinese and other military bases. As difficult as it
already is, the security situation could easily worsen
including Sudan, a conflict that is sowing instability,
extracting an immense human toll, and providing opportunities
for American competitors.
The region could soon host three devastating wars if
Ethiopia and Eritrea start fighting and if South Sudan's
leaders continue their brinksmanship.
Meanwhile, Somalia's Islamist terrorist group Al-Shabaab is
retaking territory as the government in Mogadishu remains mired
in corruption and dysfunction.
In a bit of good news, for which the Trump administration
deserves credit, the DRC-Rwanda detente is proceeding, though
the progress is incomplete and reversible.
Further instability will heighten the cost to the U.S.
economy and the dangers to Americans in the region, and make it
very hard for Washington to seize the opportunities there.
Additionally, the U.S.' primary geopolitical competitors,
as well as friendlier but at times still challenging countries,
are prioritizing the region.
In Djibouti, China built a military base with a pier
sufficient to host a Chinese aircraft carrier or nuclear
submarine.
By participating in anti-piracy patrols in the Gulf of
Aden, its vessels have gained experience that could be used
against Taiwan or in the South China Sea.
Its companies are involved in ports and have built
important government buildings throughout the region, and
senior Chinese officials have visited over 100 times since
1963.
Russia recently reached an agreement to put a logistics
center in Port Sudan. This follows naval visits to Eritrea, a
naval agreement with Ethiopia, and a flurry of high-level
diplomatic visits between Moscow and East African countries.
In 2023, Ebrahim Raisi became the first Iranian President
to visit Africa in over a decade. He visited Uganda and Kenya.
Tehran normalized relations with Sudan the same year and
started the process with Somalia last year.
Iranian weapons are currently helping the south and
previously helped the Ethiopian Government prevail in the
Tigray war.
Other outside powers are important, as well. Qatar, Saudi
Arabia, Turkey, and the UAE have invested heavily in East
Africa, made large loans to various countries, and involved
themselves in different ways in the various conflicts.
UAE has funneled so much materiel to the Rapid Support
Forces in Sudan that it is likely the only reason the RSF has
been able to sustain the operational tempo it has.
There are many ways for Washington to ensure Americans
benefit from the opportunities in East Africa while protecting
against the threats. These include the following.
First, create an East Africa strategy that is integrated
into a broader Africa and global strategy. Commercial
engagement should be at the core of any such strategy. It is
critical as well to quickly fill the senior Africa-focused
positions at the State Department and NSC.
Number two, conduct sober assessments of Washington's
ability to positively influence democratic growth and proceed
accordingly.
For instance, state-building in Somalia is a failed
experiment, yet Washington has not pivoted from over a decade
of trying the same thing over and over.
Three, upgrade Washington's abilities to support African
government and civic institutions and avoid over-reliance on
personalities.
Fourth and finally, develop a country-focused framework.
Washington should concentrate its finite resources in countries
that have a baseline level of competence, strategic importance,
and willingness to work with the U.S.
The situation in East Africa is difficult, yet vigorous and
sustained U.S. diplomacy could avert the worst consequences for
the U.S. and reap demonstrable benefits for Americans.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today and I
look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Meservey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mr. Joshua Meservey
Chairman Risch, Ranking Member Shaheen, and members of the
committee, thank you for the honor of testifying today, and for your
attention to an important region of the world.
My name is Joshua Meservey, and I am a Senior Fellow at Hudson
Institute. My views are my own and should not be construed as
representing the official position of Hudson Institute.
the importance of east africa \1\ to the united states
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For the purposes of this testimony, the author considers East
Africa to comprise Burundi, Comoros, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea,
Kenya, Rwanda, Seychelles, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania, and
Uganda.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
East Africa is important to the prosperity and safety of Americans.
The region has significant reserves of oil, gas, and critical minerals,
the latter of which could lessen the U.S.'s serious minerals supply
chain problem. Its economy is fast-expanding--the World Bank estimates
nearly 6 percent growth this year and next \2\--and it has 6 of
Africa's 10 most populous countries if including the DRC. Kenya is also
one of Africa's emerging tech hubs. The region is rich with
possibilities as a potential market for American goods, for U.S.
investment, and for potential technological breakthroughs in key
industries like biotechnology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``The World Bank in Eastern and Southern Africa,'' The World
Bank, October 21, 2024, https://www.worldbank.org/en/region/afr/
eastern-and-southern-africa [accessed May 10, 2025].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The region's extensive coastline spans key shipping routes in the
Red Sea, Gulf of Aden, and Indian Ocean. The Houthi attacks on these
sensitive sea lanes have raised shipping costs globally, including for
America.\3\ Djibouti has more foreign military bases per square mile
than any other country, and hosts the U.S.'s and China's only permanent
African bases. The Red Sea is dense with submarine cables that carry
vital information around the globe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``President Trump Is Standing Up to Terrorism and Protecting
International Commerce,'' The White House, March 15, 2025, https://
www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/03/president-trump-is-standing-up-to-
terrorism-and-protecting-international-commerce/ [accessed May 10,
2025].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The region is also experiencing serious instability with the
potential for far worse. If some of the grimmer scenarios materialize,
there will be mass displacement throughout the region and potentially
into Europe, the Middle East, and beyond, along with a severe human
toll.
The world's worst humanitarian crisis already rages in Sudan where
the genocidal Rapid Support Forces (RSF) battles the Sudanese Armed
Forces (SAF). The recent UAV attacks by the RSF on Port Sudan have
escalated the conflict even higher. Buoyed by external actors, both
sides appear to believe that they can still achieve their goals on the
battlefield, suggesting there is no end in sight.
Renewed political violence in South Sudan threatens a return to
full-scale civil war. To its east, tensions between Eritrea and
Ethiopia remain high and could trigger a disastrous conflict. None of
the primary underlying tensions have been resolved. Until they are, the
situation will remain on a hair trigger.
In a piece of welcome news, the U.S. recently facilitated a detente
between DRC and Rwanda on the conflict in eastern DRC. However, the
progress is incomplete and reversible.
In Somalia, the Islamist terrorist group al-Shabaab has retaken
territory as the government in Mogadishu remains mired in corruption
and dysfunction. Al-Shabaab killed Americans in the region previously
and maintains the desire and capability to do so again.
Additionally, the U.S.'s primary geopolitical competitors, as well
friendlier but at times still challenging countries, are prioritizing
the region. The following is a sample of the activities of some of the
outside players active in East Africa:
In Djibouti, China built its first overseas military base, a
hardened enclave with a pier sufficient to host a Chinese
aircraft carrier or nuclear submarine. Since 2008, its vessels
have participated in anti-piracy patrols in the Gulf of Aden.
After their deployments, the taskforces make port calls to
countries up and down both coasts of the continent. The
capabilities the PLA Navy is building will likely be useful in
any future invasion of Taiwan or for enforcing Beijing's
expansionist territorial claims in the South China Sea.
Chinese companies built and/or operate terminals within Djibouti
port and are involved in 17 ports total in East Africa,
according to the Africa Center for Strategic Studies.\4\ Some
of the largest Chinese-involved infrastructure projects in all
of Africa are in this region, and Chinese companies have built
sensitive African government buildings in the area.\5\ Between
1963 and 2023, Chinese officials holding four of the most
senior Chinese Government and Communist Party positions
involved in foreign affairs visited East Africa 101 times.\6\
All but two East African countries have signed letters
circulated at the United Nations supporting China's ethnic
cleansing policies in Xinjiang.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Paul Nantulya, ``Mapping China's Strategic Port Development in
Africa,'' Africa Center for Strategic Studies, March 10, 2025, https://
africacenter.org/spotlight/china-port-development-africa/ [accessed May
10, 2025].
\5\ Joshua Meservey, ``Government Buildings in Africa Are a Likely
Vector for Chinese Spying,'' The Heritage Foundation, May 20, 2020,
https://www.heritage.org/asia/report/government-buildings-africa-are-
likely-vector-chinese-spying [accessed May 10, 2025].
\6\ The four ranks are President, Premier, Director of the Office
of the Central Foreign Affairs Commission, and Foreign Minister. Data
compiled by author from various sources.
\7\ The two are Rwanda and Seychelles. Burundi, Comoros, Eritrea,
and South Sudan have signed all 10 of the letters. Data compiled by
author.
Russia secured an agreement to build a ``logistical support
point'' \8\ in Port Sudan after years of trying to secure a
base in the region. Wagner mercenaries supported the Rapid
Support Forces for a time in Sudan and were involved in gold
mining in the country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``Sudanese diplomat confirms commitment to Russian naval base
on Red Sea,'' Sudan Tribune, June 1, 2024, https://sudantribune.com/
article286475/ [accessed May 10, 2025].
In the space of 2 months in 2023, Eritrean President Isaias
Afewerki visited Moscow twice, and less than a year later a
Russian Pacific fleet frigate made a 5-day port call in
Massawa. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov visited Eritrea in
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2023, the first ever such visit by a Russian foreign minister.
In March this year, the Russian deputy navy commander visited
Ethiopia and signed with his counterpart a cooperation
agreement on capacity building and training.
Iran in the last several years has focused on East Africa to
regain some of the influence it lost due primarily to the
efforts of the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Ebrahim Raisi became the
first Iranian President to visit Africa in over a decade when
he toured Uganda and Kenya in 2023. Despite the Iranian-backed
terror plots his country has suffered, Kenyan President William
Ruto dubbed Iran a ``critical strategic partner.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ``Iran's president in Kenya and Uganda to deepen ties,'' The
Citizen, July 12, 2023, https://www.thecitizen.co.tz/tanzania/news/
east-africa-news/iran-s-president-in-kenya-and-uganda-to-deepen-ties-
4301232 [accessed May 10, 2025].
Somalia and Iran began normalizing diplomatic relations last year,
and Sudan completed its own rapprochement with Iran in 2023.
Iranian weapons, especially drones, appear to have helped the
SAF to reclaim territory and assisted the Ethiopian Government
to prevail in the recent Tigray war. Earlier this year,
Ethiopia's and Iran's police services agreed to cooperate on
intelligence sharing and other issues, notwithstanding the 2021
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
disruption of an Iranian terror plot in Addis Ababa.
Other outside powers are important players as well. Qatar, Saudi
Arabia, Turkiye, and the UAE have invested heavily in East African
sectors ranging from agriculture to mining to renewable energy. In
addition to its economic activities, Qatar mediated disputes including
between Djibouti and Eritrea, in Sudan, and, currently, between DRC and
Rwanda. It also bankrolled Somali politicians and distributed aid in
the country through Islamist organizations.
Saudi Arabia is backing the SAF in Sudan and was once interested in
building a base in Djibouti.
Turkiye built a military base and its largest embassy in the world
in Mogadishu and recently sent advanced UAVs and hundreds of troops to
fight al-Shabaab's advances. Turkish companies run Mogadishu seaport
and airport, and Ankara recently struck a favorable deal for developing
Somalia's oil reserves.
The UAE, meanwhile, has trained troops in Somalia's Puntland
region, operated a base in Eritrea during its military operations in
Yemen, and expanded Somaliland's Berbera port via a state-owned
company. It is also the RSF's primary backer in the Sudanese civil war
and has made large loans throughout the region.
This partial survey of outside powers' activities in East Africa
demonstrates their understanding of the region's importance. Chinese,
Iranian, and Russian actions in particular underscore the risks for the
U.S. of not being energetically and wisely engaged.
recommendations
There are many ways for Washington to ensure Americans benefit from
the opportunities in East Africa while protecting against the threats
emanating from the region, including the following:
Create an East Africa strategy that is integrated into a
broader Africa and global strategy. The Trump administration
should urgently develop a pragmatic, reality-based strategy for
the region. What happens there has too many implications for
the U.S. to allow American policy to drift. Such a strategy can
only be effective if it is plugged into a larger continental
strategy, which in turn must be part of a global strategy. It
also requires quickly filling the senior Africa-focused
positions at the State Department and National Security
Council.
At the heart of a properly formulated East Africa strategy would be
commercial engagement. Increased American investment and
equitable trade would add to the U.S. economy, draw countries
closer to Washington, and help address American critical
minerals supply chain problems. Washington should upgrade its
abilities to facilitate U.S. business operations in the region,
including by streamlining the work of the Development Finance
Corporation, the U.S. EXIM Bank, and related organizations.
Conduct sober assessments of Washington's ability to
positively influence issues of democracy and proceed
accordingly. For instance, state-building in Somalia is a
failed experiment. Clan remains the fundamental ordering
principle of Somalia's society, making a strong central
government unworkable. Yet Washington has spent over a decade
trying to make just such a system work in Mogadishu. Instead,
Washington should work directly with those federal member
states and other sources of authority that are friendly and
have enough legitimacy and competence to degrade al-Shabaab.
The U.S. should coordinate with neighboring states that have
strong national security interests in Somalia as well.
Upgrade Washington's abilities to support African Government
and civic institutions and avoid overreliance on personalities.
Institutions are generally stabilizing forces and will often
outlast even the longest-serving rulers. Washington should
maintain working ties with regional leaders, but overreliance
makes the U.S. vulnerable.
Kenya, for instance, is an important country and there are
opportunities to work with President Ruto. Yet, he was also
recently in Beijing proclaiming his commitment to refashioning
the global order, a project that is core to the Chinese
Government's efforts to supplant the U.S. globally.
Uganda is another such case. Its troops are helpfully fighting al-
Shabaab, yet President Museveni's son, his heir apparent, is
erratic and intemperate, and may have recently participated in
the torture of an opposition leader's bodyguard.\10\ Washington
should balance the risks inherent in working with especially
long-term leaders and promote durable state-to-state relations
by, for instance, offering more technical trainings for African
judiciaries and commercial ministries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Bobi Wine (@HEBobiwine), ``THE STATE OF EDDIE MUTWE. We just
returned from Masaka Main Prison, where we checked on our comrades
Eddie Mutwe, Achileo Kivumbi, Mugumya Gaddafi, and Wakabi Grace. Eddie
Mutwe is alive--that's the only good news . . . ,'' X, May 7, 2025,
8:04 a.m., https://x.com/HEBobiwine/status/1920087242871112128
[accessed May 10, 2025].
Develop a focus country framework. Given that Washington
perennially allocates relatively few resources to its Africa
efforts, it should concentrate those resources in countries
that have a baseline level of competence, strategic importance,
and willingness to work with the U.S. Such countries should
receive a full suite of U.S. engagements including high-level
diplomatic visits, business delegations with access to U.S.
Government support, and commercial officers stationed in the
embassy.
tinderbox and turning point
Africa seems to forever be at a turning point, yet the current
situation in East Africa is undeniably as tense and delicate as it has
been for decades. In addition to Sudan, it is plausible that there
could soon be two other full-fledged wars in the region, either of
which would likely be among the worst in the world.
Yet despite these and other dangers, the region is also one of
opportunity and importance for Americans. Seizing opportunity while
minimizing risk demands vigorous and sustained U.S. diplomacy.
Washington is still perfectly capable of mustering such an effort, but
urgency is required.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and I look
forward to your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you for those thoughtful comments, Mr.
Meservey.
We are going to turn now to Ambassador Michelle Gavin. She
is the Ralph Bunche senior fellow for Africa Policy Studies at
the Council on Foreign Relations.
She served as U.S. Ambassador to Botswana and the U.S.
Representative to the Southern African Development Community
from 2011 to 2014.
Part of that she was a special assistant to President Obama
and the senior director for Africa at the National Security
Council where she led major policy reviews of Sudan and
Somalia.
She also previously served as managing Director of the
African Center in New York. Was an international affairs fellow
and adjunct fellow for Africa at the Council on Foreign
Relations.
Earlier in her career she worked in the U.S. Senate where
she was the staff director for the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee's Subcommittee on African Affairs, certainly a
distinguished position.
She was director of international policy issues for Senator
Russ Feingold and was legislative director for Senator Ken
Salazar.
Ms. Gavin received a masters in philosophy and
international relations from Oxford University where she was a
Rhodes Scholar and earned her B.A. from Georgetown University's
School of Foreign Service.
Ambassador Gavin, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF MICHELLE GAVIN, RALPH BUNCHE SENIOR FELLOW FOR
AFRICA POLICY STUDIES, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, NEW YORK,
NY
Ms. Gavin. Thank you so much.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Shaheen, distinguished members
of the committee, it is wonderful to have this opportunity to
appear before you and discuss the very complex and challenging
set of issues the U.S. confronts.
I also really want to thank the staff. I do know from
personal experience how much work goes into preparing for these
hearings----
The Chairman. I bet you do.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Gavin. ----and I am grateful for that as well.
Obviously, the role of Congress in Africa policy has a
really long history. It has often been an oasis of bipartisan
cooperation.
It is one reason I enjoyed working on it for so long, and
there are sort of numerous historical examples of Congress
really elevating issues that sometimes a busy executive branch
is, perhaps, neglecting.
Of course, as has been discussed, the forces pulling the
Horn of Africa apart are gaining strength. There are very real,
eminent threats to stability in several other East African
countries.
Nothing is more searing than Sudan's shockingly destructive
war, which shows no sign of ending. The recent wave of drone
attacks on Port Sudan, along with the RSF's sustained pressure
on El-Fasher confirmed that it is, indeed, possible for this
terrible situation, the worst humanitarian crisis in the world,
to get even worse and famine on a scale the world has not seen
in decades remains not just a possibility, but a likelihood.
We have multiple civil conflicts persisting in Ethiopia,
and Prime Minister Abiy's ambition to regain a presence on the
Red Sea has raised tensions with Ethiopia's neighbors.
Of course, my colleague is absolutely right. Somalia
continues to struggle for a modicum of effective governance
while battling al-Qaeda's largest global affiliate Al-Shabaab
and dealing with a chapter of the Islamic State.
China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Turkey, Iran--
all of these states are active in the region. Many are very
clearly thinking about their relationships in the Horn of
Africa through a long-term strategic lens.
They are investing in influence, and because their
interests are not always aligned they are sometimes engaging in
proxy conflict, and we see this very clearly in Sudan.
It is, frankly, less clear that the United States has a
strategic vision for its relationship with the region. Long-
standing problems of understaffed embassies and insufficient
prioritization of African issues have joined the immediate
shock of these very abrupt changes in foreign assistance and
international humanitarian aid delivery to make it very easy
for adversaries to paint the United States as uninterested and
unreliable.
Other anti-American messages capitalize on the fact that
U.S. has been the most powerful country in the world throughout
the post-Cold War era and they tend to paint Washington as the
enforcer of a painful, unjust status quo, which is one reason
there is enthusiasm for BRICS in the region and one reason I am
concerned about the cuts to Voice of America, which has
provided some alternative perspectives on global issues.
This widespread perception of disengagement exists despite
the fact that the United States, as you rightly noted, has very
clear vital interests in this part of the world, not least the
free flow of commerce through the Red Sea and combating
terrorist organizations with very well-documented intent, and
in many cases experience, track records of doing so, of harming
Americans.
Part of the problem is uncertainty about just what the U.S.
wishes to see in the region, what kind of East Africa is in the
U.S. interest. We would certainly benefit from a region at
peace, with capable governments that can be partners in
addressing existing and emerging threats.
We would benefit from a region with growing economies that
can become trading partners, attractive investment
destinations, potential collaborators in new enterprises, and
we would benefit from a region, vitally, that is not beholden
to U.S. adversaries or mortgaged to deep-pocketed external
actors whose interests do not always align with ours.
To pursue this vision, the United States needs to
prioritize conflict resolution and conflict prevention. If
these seem expensive, I think we have seen through this
exercise with the Houthis in Yemen that it is far more
expensive to actually have to turn to military action to
protect our interests.
The United States should avoid, I agree, an over-reliance
on personal relationships with any specific regional leaders.
Of course, the United States cannot simply impose its will
on other states, but there can be no delegating responsibility
for pursuing U.S. interests to any partner, not in East Africa
and not in the Gulf.
Finally, the United States needs to develop and pursue a
Red Sea regional strategy, not a set of a la carte deals, that
transcends our own bureaucratic divisions that put Africa in
one basket and the Middle East in another.
For several years I have served with other former U.S.
officials on the U.S. Institute of Peace's Red Sea Study Group,
which has advocated for this kind of more comprehensive
approach to the region.
A successful new security architecture would have to take
all relevant equities into account.
Thank you so much again for the opportunity. I look forward
to the questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gavin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ms. Michelle Gavin
Chairman Risch, Ranking Member Shaheen, and distinguished members
of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to
discuss the complex and challenging set of issues that U.S. policy
confronts in the Horn of Africa and East Africa more broadly. I also
want to thank the staff that work for the committee and its members; I
know from personal experience how much work and thought goes into these
hearings at the staff level.
This hearing is certainly timely, as the forces pulling the Horn of
Africa apart are gaining strength, and there are very real, imminent
threats to stability in several other east African countries. Sudan's
shockingly destructive war shows no signs of ending, and the recent
wave of drone attacks on Port Sudan, along with the RSF's sustained
pressure on El Fasher, confirm that it is indeed possible for this
terrible situation--the worst humanitarian crisis in the world--to get
even worse. Famine on a scale the world has not seen in decades remains
not just a possibility, but a likelihood. In at least 10 parts of
Sudan, famine is happening now. South Sudan is teetering on the brink
of a return to all out war, multiple civil conflicts persist in
Ethiopia, and Prime Minister's Abiy's ambition to regain a presence on
the Red Sea has raised tensions with Ethiopia's neighbors. Somalia
continues to struggle with the presence, and in much of the country,
the dominance, of al-Qaeda's largest global affiliate, al-Shabaab.
China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar,
Turkey, and Iran--all of these states are active in the region, and
many are clearly thinking about their relationships in the Horn of
Africa through a long-term, strategic lens. They are investing in
influence--and because their interests do not always align, sometimes
engaging in proxy conflict. There is no better illustration of this
dynamic than the crowded field of actors fueling Sudan's conflict.
Russia is courting the Sudanese Armed Forces coalition in the hopes of
security a Red Sea Port. The UAE funds and arms the genocidal Rapid
Support Forces--presumably partly because of its concerns about the
Islamist influences in the SAF coalition, which also gets support from
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran.
It's less clear that the United States has a strategic vision for
its relationship with the region. Today, the longstanding problems of
understaffed embassies and insufficient prioritization of African
issues have joined the immediate shock of abrupt changes in foreign
assistance and international humanitarian aid delivery to make it very
easy for adversaries to paint the United States as uninterested and
unreliable. Other anti-American messages capitalize on the fact that
the U.S. has been the most powerful country in the world throughout the
post-Cold War era, and paint Washington as the enforcer of a painful,
unjust status quo--one reason why there is real enthusiasm for the
BRICS in the region.
This widespread perception of U.S. disengagement exists despite the
fact that it is clear that the United States has vital interests in
this part of the world--not least the importance of the free flow of
commerce through the Red Sea, including vital energy resources and food
supplies. Terrorist organizations with the intent to harm Americans--
and a track record of doing so--continue to operate in the region.
Part of the problem is the uncertainly around what the U.S. wants
in the region. So what kind of east African region is in U.S.
interests? The U.S. would benefit from a region at peace, with capable
governments that can be partners in addressing existing and emerging
threats. The U.S. would benefit from a region with growing economies
that can become trading partners, attractive investment destinations,
and potential collaborators in new enterprises--and, crucially, give
young people dignified work at home rather than pushing them into mass
migration. The U.S. would benefit from a region that is not beholden to
U.S. adversaries, or mortgaged to deep pocketed external actors whose
interests do not always align with ours.
To pursue this vision, first, the United States needs to prioritize
conflict resolution and conflict prevention. In addition to the truly
horrifying human cost, the Horn of Africa's conflicts create
opportunities for terrorist organizations and international criminal
groups, and we have ample evidence that these conflicts do not stay
contained within national borders, but spill over to destabilize
neighbors and exacerbate their own fragility. Sudan's conflict has
worsened instability in South Sudan and Chad. Somalia's longstanding
fragility has profoundly affected the security postures and priorities
of its neighbors.
Peacemaking and conflict prevention requires senior attention,
diplomatic resources, and strategies that give actors on the ground a
stake in maintaining peace, which is why job creation and governance
matter so much. It requires awareness of the way that migratory flows
and resource competition can ignite precarious situations, and timely,
professional efforts to mitigate those types of crises. If all of that
sounds costly and labor intensive, the truth is that letting these
problems fester is even more expensive. Elsewhere in the Red Sea, we
are seeing the cost of failing to address militancy and insecurity.
Reports indicate that the current administration's military campaign
targeting the Houthis has cost taxpayers over a billion dollars, and
there is no reason to believe that the problem is definitively
resolved.
Conflict prevention also requires looking over the horizon, and I
would be remiss if I did not flag for this committee the extremely
troubling uptick in political violence in Uganda and Tanzania as those
countries approach elections. Avoiding worst-case scenarios requires
attention and deft engagement now.
Second, the Unites States should avoid an overreliance on personal
relationships with any specific regional leaders, both because this
entire region is in the midst of a major geopolitical realignment, and
because this young, urbanizing part of the world is politically
volatile. Deals that benefit only small circle of leaders will cease to
advance U.S. interests when that circle is no longer in power. It's
absolutely the case that the United States cannot impose its will on
other states, and that working closely with regional actors and
institutions is necessary. But there can be no delegating
responsibility for pursuing U.S. interests to any partner.
This is also why it's important to keep a close eye on internal
dynamics in the region's diverse countries, and for the United States
to develop strong contacts and relationships with actors outside of
government. Leadership changes don't have to upend U.S. strategy if we
understand the aspirations and concerns that drive them. If getting
things done and protecting our interests requires cooperative action,
then it makes sense that we need to understand the priorities and
interests of potential partners in full. U.S. relations with Kenya, or
closest partner in the region, illustrate the point. The United States
has worked closely with President Ruto to deepen commercial and
security relations with Kenya, but missed opportunities to align with
the Kenyan people, who have made it very clear since that fighting
corruption is top priority of theirs. The result of the misalignment is
a less appealing investment climate for the U.S., and a weakened Kenyan
President assiduously seeking support from China and the Gulf.
Finally, the United States must develop and pursue a Red Sea
regional strategy--not a set of a la carte deals--that transcends
bureaucratic divisions between the parts of our government that work on
Africa and those that work on the Middle East. For several years, I
have served with other former U.S. officials on the U.S. Institute of
Peace's Red Sea Study Group, which has advocated for this kind of more
comprehensive approach to the region. There can be no lasting peace in
the Horn without addressing the security concerns and economic
incentives that have prompted Gulf actors to fan the flames of
conflict. Equally, no peace will be sustainable if it is perceived as a
set of deals cooked up in Western and Middle Eastern capitals and
imposed on Africans. A successful new security architecture for the
region must take all relevant equities into account.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ambassador.
We are now going to go through 5-minute questions around 5
minutes each to each of the senators who wish to participate,
and I am going to start.
I have to tell you that watching President Ruto with the
Chinese holding hands and talking about a new world order is
just stunning.
After all the work and effort we have put in there and see
him talking about a new world order, the new world order was
constructed by the United States and democracies, capitalist
countries that are human rights-loving countries, and the new,
new world order that these countries are talking about is being
constructed by the autocracies, the outright communists,
socialists, people who have no respect for human rights.
It is stunning to hear countries talk about wanting to join
or promote that world order when the world order that was
constructed after World War II has served us so really well.
Certainly, not perfectly but, then again, the world is not
a perfect place, but so much better than what you would see if
the autocrats took over.
It is discouraging to hear that and part of it, I think, is
tied to the fact that when we do things in Africa they seem to
be individual centric instead of country centric.
We do not focus on institutions--we focus on individuals,
and I do not know why it seems to be more prevalent in this
part of the world than others.
If each of you could take a quick run at a very complex
question. Why do you not start?
Mr. Meservey. Thank you, Chairman.
I agree, President Ruto's comments were discouraging. They
are not also out of the ordinary for the types of comments that
African leaders make, especially when they travel to Beijing,
unfortunately.
This is a challenge for the United States. I would suggest
that African leaders have not always thoroughly thought through
the consequences of this different type of world order,
especially smaller countries that are smaller military or
economic powers.
The type of world order that China, Russia, Iran are
advocating for would mean that they would be victimized
probably in many ways.
The grievances that African leaders often express are
focused on a few key issues, and then I think these larger
powers like China, like Russia, like Iran, have co-opted those
issues into their broader agenda to confront the United States.
I think the U.S. should make it clear to African leaders
that while, of course, they are welcome to have normal
relations with these countries, especially if you are a major
non-NATO ally, there are certain responsibilities associated
with that, and I think the U.S. needs to be much more
aggressive in its messaging, frankly, to African publics and to
African leadership about the benefits that you laid out of the
world order that the United States has underpinned for decades
now.
The Chairman. I appreciate that, and I think you hit on
something that probably deserves more thought and more
attention, and that is the fact that this is the kind of thing
that they are used to and the reason they are used to it is
they see it all over the continent, and they do not have the
cadre of people that study in the United States like most other
continents do, really.
China, for example, has got hundreds of thousands of
students studying here and the Europeans are notorious for
having lots of people here, so they are exposed to a different
type of government, I think.
Ambassador, your thoughts?
Ms. Gavin. Thank you. That is such an interesting last
point. I could not agree more that bringing more African
students to the U.S. would absolutely be in U.S. interest.
We have seen time and again how it can pay dividends down
the line, although it is very difficult actually for a lot of
Africans to come do university and graduate studies here right
now.
The Chairman. The thing that strikes me, too, is when we
deal with leaders, as all of us do from all over the planet, it
always amazes me how well--how good their English is, most of
them.
You ask them why, and they studied here in the United
States. People who are coming up through those other countries
are sent by their parents or their government or something to
study here, and the result is they take home the view of how
important human rights are, how important democracy is.
I am sorry. I interrupted. Go ahead.
Ms. Gavin. No, no, I agree with you completely. I do think
there is kind of an inflection point in many parts of the
continent right now because you have these very young
populations that are now urbanizing, digitally connected.
There is a lot more political volatility and so part of
what I think is happening is a demand-driven desire for an
international order that takes African equities into account,
the sort of awareness that the Bretton Woods institutions were
created right before most African countries were independent.
Then that is capitalized on by U.S. adversaries, right, to
distort the message to the U.S. wishes to keep African
populations in poverty or that is more or less the thrust of
it.
There is also the fact that money talks and for a lot of
these African leaders they are dealing with tremendously
constrained fiscal space.
They have big debt burdens, and the way the U.S. provides
assistance, in ways that we can be accountable to the American
taxpayers, it is a little bit different dealing with the
Chinese or with some of these Gulf actors who have been gaining
influence.
The last thing I would say is that I could not agree more
that it is really important to keep an eye on the internal
dynamics in these countries and for the U.S. to understand and
have strong contacts and relationships with actors outside of
government because leadership changes are going to happen and
these investments and these one-to-one personal elite
relationships will not serve our interests. They will have a
sell-by date and will be left in the cold.
The Chairman. I appreciate that and I appreciate the remark
you made about the fact that money talks and we wind up with
that all over.
It is hard to explain to people that there is a real
difference between capitalism and socialism. Where the
government owns the capital and owns all the money, it is easy
for them to spread it out in other countries as they deem
appropriate, whereas in capitalism you need the profit motive
and the free market system to back you up.
With that, Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. You both mentioned messaging
and, Ms. Gavin, you mentioned concerns that we are shutting
down Voice of America and other information, ways that we can
message into places like the Horn of Africa.
Can you talk about what we lose when we do that? I am going
to ask both of you this question because we had a hearing in
this committee at the beginning of the year and one of the
things that one of the witnesses told us is that the PRC is
spending over a billion dollars a year just on misinformation
and disinformation campaigns.
Much of that, obviously, is going into Africa. What is the
impact of that and what is our alternative if we shut down all
of our organizations that allow us to correct inaccurate facts,
to correct the misinformation campaigns that the PRC and Russia
and other adversaries are doing?
Do you want to begin?
Ms. Gavin. Sure. I think it is actually incredibly
important because it is not just the PRC. You are absolutely
right, they have made massive investments in media on the
continent including hiring local reporters who then are
delivering state-approved messages and slants on the news.
I think that the U.S. has a role to play both in supporting
independent media in this part of the world, investigative
journalism.
This is how one has accountability and more connectivity,
right, between populations and their leadership, and I think
when we are absent it is, again, just incredibly easy to
caricature the U.S. as uninterested or, worse, having some kind
of malign interest in the region.
I have been looking at African social media discussions
pretty intently for several years as part of a book project and
the Russians, they too have their own influence campaigns that
are very, very popular and the messages are--you can see why
the messages would be appealing.
The messages are about respect for African lives and
sovereignty. They are about addressing the frustration that
African countries are rich in resources and, yet, people cannot
find jobs.
Having an absence of both straight reporting and clear
messaging about what the U.S. is trying to achieve it just--
there has been just a vacuum and there we are with adversaries
quite busily filling in.
Senator Shaheen. Mr. Meservey.
Mr. Meservey. Yes, thank you for that question.
I would like to see American embassies be more proactive in
this space coordinating their messaging or maybe receiving
messaging from Washington. I do not know exactly how it would
look.
There are moments in the geopolitical calendar where there
are real opportunities for the U.S. to push out a message that
is positive about the United States.
There has traditionally been a reticence or even in some
cases I would describe it as almost an embarrassment in some
cases to take a really vigorous pro-American unapologetic
stance on the U.S. whereas the Russians and Irans and Chinas of
the world have no problems at all doing that type of thing.
They do not spend their time worried about injustices from
the past that they might have been involved in.
I think that is one area. Another area that always
frustrated me was we had these extraordinary programs, PEPFAR
being one of them, that literally saved tens of millions of
African lives.
Senator Shaheen. Did. Past tense.
Mr. Meservey. I am hopeful that there will be elements of
that continuing, but I understand that is an ongoing process.
We--as far as I could tell, we got very little credit for
that and--now, that is not the only reason to do something, but
as--because this program was funded by American taxpayers it
should have redounded to American taxpayer credit.
The U.S. was just very bad about reminding people of the
extraordinary benefits that came from American public health
interventions. It was very bad about tooting its own horn, let
us say.
I think we need to move away from that reticence and,
again, be much more coordinated and even aggressive in touting
the American model and demonstrating our track record.
Senator Shaheen. I certainly agree with that in terms of
being very clear about what we are providing to help in
countries. I think the sad thing at this point is we do not
have those programs anymore because they are gone. They just
got eliminated.
How do we do that and how do we do that--I agree with you
on the embassies. I think our embassies ought to be very
positive about the United States and what we offer to
countries, but without an apparatus to get that messaging out
it is going to be really hard to do that, especially when we
are up against over a billion dollars from the PRC and
providing that kind of information.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Shaheen.
A good point, both of you, on the fact that we did not get
any credit for PEPFAR. I think probably the reason for that was
we did not do this to get credit.
We did this to actually make a difference and we made a
difference, and I think we will continue to do so as we go
through these programs, but I think that is probably a lesson
for us that when you do good you ought to at least give
yourself credit for doing good, and we just did the good and
did not take any credit for it.
Senator Ricketts.
Senator Ricketts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
A lot of attention has been given to the Houthi attacks in
the Red Sea and its impact on global shipping. However, there
is a deeper, more strategic, critical problem developing here
with regard to the Houthis' funding from Iran and they are
moving into Somalia and establishing relationship ties with Al-
Shabaab and the Islamic State's Somalia, and this is something
that I think is very challenging for the United States.
During the first Trump administration Trump's maximum
pressure effort brought Iran's foreign reserves down from over
$122.5 billion dollars under $14 billion, and I am pleased to
see that the Trump administration is again putting maximum
pressure on Iran to cut off the flow of money from Iran to
terrorist groups like the Houthis.
I think that needs to happen to be able to make sure we are
putting pressure on them. We also need to get the snapback
sanctions on Iran as well, but this growing pipeline of drones,
munitions, and military expertise risks turning the Horn of
Africa into an extension of Iran's proxy network.
If left unchecked this could destabilize the region, the
shipping lanes, embolden the Islamic insurgents and create a
multi-front threat to the U.S. and our interests in the Horn of
Africa.
Mr. Meservey, how urgent is this risk that the Houthis are
moving into Somalia? Is this a long-term problem? Can you talk
a little bit about what you see right now and how urgent that
is?
Mr. Meservey. Yes. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
As you laid out, it is a very real problem. The Kenyans
would say it is, it is, maybe their primary national security
threat is the prospect of Al-Shabaab getting advanced drones,
for instance, from the Houthis or just getting more advanced
capabilities.
There is a long history of Al-Shabaab receiving help from
AQAP, which was al-Qaeda's affiliate in Yemen. Those routes are
well-established and there is also people constantly moving
back and forth.
It is highly plausible. Even though the Houthis are a Shi'a
operation and Al-Shabaab is a Sunni one, they can be quite
ecumenical when they are focused on attacking the United States
or other adversaries.
Yes, it is a very serious concern. I have not seen in the
open source any sort of definitive account of exactly what the
exchanges look like, but, certainly, if it starts to include
things like drones or even capabilities around IEDs then that
would be a massive problem both within Somalia, but also
including neighboring states like Kenya, like Ethiopia,
potentially even Djibouti.
Senator Ricketts. What should the U.S. Congress do to help
you prevent it to make sure that the Horn of Africa does not
become the next step in Iran's proxy network against us?
Mr. Meservey. I think you referenced this maximum pressure
campaign. I think Congress should do all that it can to assist
such a campaign and remind the Administration that the problem
extends far beyond Iran, far beyond the Middle East.
It also extends into places like Africa. The Houthi-Al-
Shabaab links are not the only Iranian presence on the
continent. There is a long history of Hezbollah receiving
funding, especially from West Africa, but actually all across
the continent, Shi'a proselytization, and other Iranian
activity.
I referenced some of the increased recent Iranian activity
in my remarks. Africa should absolutely be part of this maximum
pressure campaign and I think Congress can help the
Administration do that.
Senator Ricketts. I am running out of time here so I am
just--I want to just switch a little bit to talk about
communist China and their influence on Africa, which we have
already discussed a little bit.
One of the things that communist China is doing is
establish a training school in Tanzania and essentially what
they are doing is training the people who are interested in
politics about authoritarianism, as the chairman was pointing
out, and really working against multiparty democracy.
What, again, should we, as the U.S. Congress be doing to
help push back on what communist China is doing in East Africa
with regard to how they are trying to undermine the democracies
there?
Mr. Meservey. Yes. Yes, it is--China has a whole-of-
government, to use that cliche, approach to undermining
democratic norms on the continent. They are very pragmatic;
they will work with any type of government.
They are quite explicitly pushing their own model and
saying, look, you can enjoy economic prosperity as well as
centralized power, even authoritarian power.
Regarding the training school that you referenced, this
is--the CCP has long links to the liberation movements in
southern Africa especially, and there are constant trainings
ongoing between CCP and liberation movement cadres in ANC. In
South Africa, their entire NEC--their governing council--has
been trained in China.
I think the U.S. needs to try a variety of approaches. One,
again, it needs to unabashedly make the case for democracy,
free markets, et cetera.
I think it should hearken back to the history the United
States has of partnering with countries like Japan, like South
Korea, for instance, Germany after World War II, and
demonstrate that with strong American partnership you can
really achieve significant gains.
I think it should focus heavily on supporting civil society
organizations which are oftentimes the best check on
overweening government power, et cetera.
Senator Ricketts. Mr. Chairman, if I may just have a--can I
allow Ambassador Gavin to maybe weigh in on that last question
real briefly? Is that okay?
The Chairman. Generous as the chairman is----
Senator Ricketts. You are so generous. Thank you.
Ambassador Gavin, could you just quickly, again, just kind
of--and do not repeat what Mr. Meservey said, but anything else
you observed?
Ms. Gavin. Yes. I think that this relationship between the
CCP and these dominant ruling parties on the continent is
actually ultimately going to be a disadvantage for China
because the sort of discourse about why these ruling parties
should be in charge tends to link back to liberation, and most
African societies skew very young.
These are populations that do not remember pre-liberation
days and are wondering what their government has done for them
lately.
I think continuing to hold--it would be nice to restore
some of the democracy and governance work that the U.S. did--
NDI and IRI--that help really draw a clear line between party
and state, which is also important for combating corruption
which if you look at Afrobarometer polling is at the very top
of African priority list, so we can align ourselves with these
populations that way.
Senator Ricketts. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. Thank you very much, Chairman Risch and
Ranking Member Shaheen, for this important full committee
hearing. To the ambassador and to Mr. Meservey, thank you for
your testimony.
What I hear from both of you is more engagement; not less.
More of what we have done that works and that the abrupt and
chaotic closure of a very wide range of our most effective
tools for engaging with Africa, from the MCC to YALI to the
PEPFAR program, puts all of this at risk.
Mr. Chairman, if I might, given your opening comments and
the exchange I would love to work with you on clarifying the
U.S.-Kenya relationship.
Their foreign minister and national security advisor were
just here last week meeting with the President and folks at the
White House, and I agree with you that some of those statements
with the PRC are very concerning, given the deep and long
relationship and the security relationship we have with regards
to Al-Shabaab and Somalia.
The Chairman. It is disappointing, to say the least.
Senator Coons. You referenced how important it is that
there be more students from Africa coming to the United States.
Well, I got a solution for you. It is a 15-year-old program
called the Young African Leaders Initiative that has sent
20,000 vetted, promising African students to the United
States--the University of Delaware happens to be one of the 20
hosting universities--at a very modest cost that is about to be
shut down. Not a good idea.
It brings promising, young African leaders to the United
States for a summer to meet with businesses and entrepreneurs,
to meet with civil society, to convene in Washington and then
go to 20 different states all over the country--one of many
things I do not think we should shut down.
To the point you just made, Ambassador Gavin, the
Millennium Challenge Corporation--MCC--launched under President
Bush explicitly used corruption and combating corruption,
reducing corruption, as one of the key indicators for whether
or not a country would get a long-term development partnership
with the United States.
It is all but closed. Most of its staff have been laid off.
Many of its compacts have been shut down. PEPFAR, Mr. Meservey,
is all but closed. It has been trimmed dramatically from its
scope, a 25-year-old program long deserving of bipartisan
support.
I would just be interested in both of you briefly saying
what does it do to our reputation on a continent of 54
countries, a continent with enormous human potential and
natural resources, a country that China and Russia sees as the
continent of the 21st century.
What does it do to our place in East Africa and across the
continent if we abruptly shut down these longstanding
demonstrated and effective programs?
Madam Ambassador, then Mr. Meservey.
Ms. Gavin. Thank you, Senator.
It is incredibly self-defeating, is my view. I just do not
understand why we are taking a bunch of tools in our foreign
policy toolbox and tossing them into a dumpster.
Senator Coons. I think the term is a wood chipper.
Ms. Gavin. Okay. I think--I suppose so.
Senator Coons. It is tougher to reassemble things that have
been put through a wood chipper than things that have gone
through a reasoned, considerable review which is the process
that we should have gone through----
Ms. Gavin. Oh, sure. No, reforms make----
Senator Coons. --is to have this body, Congress, work with
the new administration to say, okay, trim this, reform this,
change this, shutter this, expand this. That is not what
happened.
Ms. Gavin. No. No, it has not, and not only have we lit our
credibility on fire and you see particularly China making hay
of this.
The favorite phrase now is reliable partner. China is a
reliable partner. They are not going to abruptly pull the rug
out from under you.
I think that some of the kind of knock-on effects, consider
the tens of thousands of health workers in Kenya who are out of
work now.
These are educated, engaged citizens and the messaging we
want to do about this long relationship with Kenya, it is at
odds with their lived experience now and----
Senator Coons. I am about out of time. I have got less than
a minute.
Ms. Gavin. Sorry.
Senator Coons. Mr. Meservey, if I might.
I do agree that a bright spot is the hard work done under
the previous administration by Avril Haines in DRC Rwanda and
it is continuing under Special Advisor Boulos.
There is a real chance of peace there. I cannot think of a
more concentrated example of the PRC-U.S. competition than the
two adjacent bases in Djibouti.
I have just introduced with Senator Ricketts a bill to try
and prioritize focusing on denying the PRC more basing
opportunities on the continent.
What do you think we ought to make a priority in doing that
important work?
Mr. Meservey. Yes. Thank you, Senator, and I am very
pleased to hear about the bill and your attention to this
problem.
I would especially highlight the danger of an Atlantic
Ocean base. We know quite reliably that China has been pursuing
such a base for years. It is not hard to see how problematic
that would be for security of the American homeland.
I think the--I mentioned in my original remarks that
commercial engagement should be at the heart of a strategy, and
I think we need to start giving African countries more of what
they want and less of what they do not.
That seems like an obvious proposition, but frequently our
Africa strategy does not seem to be guided by that principle.
The existential crisis that every African government faces
is youth unemployment, and our development assistance and
humanitarian assistance, as useful as that is in some contexts,
is not going to address those problems.
I think----
Senator Coons. I do think that the Development Finance
Corporation and the MCC really focused on private sector
partnerships that fuel growth from the bottom up.
I think to the extent we can focus our messaging, our
investments, and our partnerships on combating corruption, on
being a secure and reliable partner, and on helping create
reliable, high-growth jobs, this continent of 4 billion people
by the end of this century is a place where we can win in the
competition with China, and if we do not--if we continue our
retreat, we will not.
Thank you both.
Mr. Meservey. I agree.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Coons.
Senator Cornyn.
Senator Cornyn. Thank you for being here. I think we all
agree that Africa is an important place and that we are not
doing everything that we should do or might do in order to
influence the direction of that continent.
I do take exception to some of my colleagues' statements
about the previous, I will say, the status quo ante with a lot
of money being spent in disjointed, wasteful, and unfocused
ways by the Federal Government and, obviously, changing that is
disruptive, and there is a lot of programs that I think,
particularly PEPFAR, which have been particularly important in
Africa in terms of our soft power and saving lives.
I continue, obviously, to support that, but it seems to me
we lack a coherent strategy, and I am not sure that--I know the
Administration is working on some targeted projects--for
example, the DRC on the critical minerals front and others, but
my visit to Kenya, Angola, and the DRC last August just--I was
struck just by not only the magnitude of the challenge, but how
we seem to lack any particular strategy to deal with making it
any different than it is now.
Maybe both of you--take it in turn, please--what would a
successful regional strategy in East Africa look like for the
United States?
That does not necessarily have to all emanate from the
White House. Congress can begin that conversation. What would
that look like?
Mr. Meservey. Yes. Thank you, Senator.
I think it is important, first, to ensure that any regional
strategy is integrated into a broader continental strategy and
then global strategy.
As far as the region specifically, the U.S. needs to
determine exactly what its interests are, what its goals are,
and how it can get there. That all seems obvious.
Senator Cornyn. That seems pretty fundamental.
Mr. Meservey. Yes, but sometimes----
Senator Cornyn. One of the things where our goal would be
to stop the Russians and the Chinese from essentially
preempting us and pushing us out in terms of our influence. Go
ahead.
Mr. Meservey. Yes, absolutely. I referenced the potential
Russian base, really, in Port Sudan. That would be massively
problematic. We already have the Chinese base in Djibouti, as
we have discussed.
I think--again, I am a big believer in commercial
engagement. I think the U.S. Government and the U.S. Congress
can help streamline the work of organizations like the DFC and
EXIM Bank, make them more fit for purpose.
They are too slow. They are too bureaucratic, and then make
that really a--this commercial engagement the centerpiece of
the value proposition that the United States brings to these
countries.
I also think it should determine which countries it can
actually achieve things with. There are just some country or
some governments on the continent that are so hostile and so,
frankly, inept that it is very hard to determine how the U.S.
could ever actually achieve much of anything with them.
I would--some specific areas you could talk about critical
minerals. EAC does have such things. I know that critical
minerals is already a cliche to talk about, but it is a reality
for the United States and Africa.
Senator Cornyn. Yes, it is not just a cliche.
Mr. Meservey. Yes, it is a real thing. There is a reason
everybody talks about it. It will--Africa will have to be part
of the solution for the United States.
The U.S. needs to figure out how to support its companies.
It should work with the companies of allied countries because
we have very few mining companies anymore in this country.
The Australians, the Canadians, they have huge mining
companies and look for possibilities there. They should also
work closely with other allied countries on financing
arrangements and take a much more systematic and harmonized
approach with allies to these regions to focus on the core
interests of the United States which, again, would be security
and then some of these economic issues.
Senator Cornyn. Ambassador.
Ms. Gavin. Thank you.
I think, particularly for the Horn, it is really important
to integrate what we are trying to accomplish in Africa with a
strategy that looks at the other side of the Red Sea.
This is--broadly, what we need to do is stop treating
Africa like an extra credit project in foreign policy and make
it part of the core curriculum and integrate it into the way we
think about achieving U.S. interests globally.
I think that more engagement, as Senator Coons said, a
focus on peace and conflict prevention because the conflicts in
Africa provide opportunities, particularly to Russia and to
various criminal networks--terrorist and otherwise.
This is not in our interest. Commercial deals, yes, but
making sure that deals do not just benefit a set of elites at
the top, but are deals that we can talk about benefiting both
sides of the Atlantic in a way that addresses some of these job
creation issues.
Senator Cornyn. I see my time is up.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Kaine.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the
witnesses for your helpful testimony.
I want to return to the chairman's opening comments where
he introduced an article into the record and talked about the
recent discussion of the Kenyan President in China about this
new world order.
Let me read from an article that I would like introduced in
the record. Kenya calls for new world order that reflects
Global South realities, and this is from KBC Digital, the Kenya
Broadcasting Company.
If I could introduce it into the record.
The Chairman. So entered.
[Editor's note.--The information referred to above can be found
in the ``Additional Material Submitted for the Record'' section
at the end of this document.]
Senator Kaine. From April 23, just recently.
Speaking during a public lecture at Peking University in
Beijing, President William Ruto emphasized the need to fashion
a new world order which takes cognizance of present realities.
The President was in China for a state visit. Okay. China
is welcoming the Kenyan President for a state visit. Said this,
the ongoing trade tariff wars could signal the end of the old
world order as it has existed since the end of World War II.
Further, regarding the relationship between Kenya, China,
and the rest of the world, Ruto remarked that Kenya and China
are not just trade partners, but ``co-architects of a new world
order.''
His comments are putting the U.S. and the old world order
that has not helped the Global South--this is what he is
asserting, whether or not it is true, how true it is. He is
suggesting that the trade wars might be the destruction of the
old world order and the creation of a new world order where
China and Kenya and other nations focus more attention on the
Global South.
How do we get to a place where the President of Kenya,
where we have had this long relationship, just 2 weeks ago is
making those assertions in the middle of a state visit to
China?
I do think comments that have been made by my colleagues--
the recent apparent abandonment of PEPFAR, the defunding of
USAID, NED, the DFC, the MCC, the YALI program, which also has
a presence at the University of Virginia.
AFRICOM is not based in Africa and has perennially been
under-resourced. It is based in Germany. Picking a fight with
South Africa, a pretty important nation, and labeling them as
committing genocide against Afrikaan farmers, accepting
Afrikaaner refugees while we are shutting off other refugees
from Africa.
Mr. Meservey, you used to work with Church World Service.
Church World Service work on refugee issues has been
dramatically curtailed. The church I go to is heavily Congolese
refugees who have been resettled in Richmond by Catholic
Refugee Service. Their work has been curtailed.
We do not get the benefit of the doubt necessarily, and
people look at evidence and they interpret it as to what it
means and what they are interpreting the evidence that I have
cited and other bits of evidence is that the U.S. is, to put it
charitably, uninterested, and to put it not so charitably,
affirmatively disinterested, and that leads a President like
President Ruto to make those kinds of comments, almost
gleefully, hoping that Donald Trump's tariff war will destroy
the world order that the U.S. created in the aftermath of World
War II to the benefit not only of the United States, but other
nations all over the world.
We have got to reverse this. We have to reverse it. I hear
this all over Latin America as I travel there, we would rather
deal with you than with China.
I think in the Americas there is even a closer cultural
connection because of migration patterns and family ties, but
there are with Africa as well. We would rather deal with you
than China.
You got to have something on the table, and China does and
they are not going anywhere and, yes, the conditions may be bad
and, yes, there are strings attached and, yes, they may not
perform, but they got something on the table. What do you have
on the table? The things we have on the table are being
hollowed out.
We can wring our hands about this all we want in this
committee, but if we keep bringing out the architecture of the
relationships with Africa or other parts of the world, China
has got stuff on the table.
They are going to continue to--I do not know so much about
Russia or Iran--their staying power. China is going to have
staying power.
I wanted to ask you, Ambassador Gavin, one question, and
you were getting to it sort of at the end of the Q&A with
Senator Cornyn.
I thought it was intriguing in your comments--your opening
comments about, hey, let us look at East Africa in connection
with Yemen. We divide CENTCOM from AFRICOM. We divide in this
committee, Africa from the MENA region.
Talk a little bit about what a coordinated Red Sea strategy
might look like.
Ms. Gavin. Sure. I think that it would require convening
both the African side of the Red Sea and the powers there with
these Gulf actors who are clearly intervening to try and stake
out influence and territory and trying to tease out what
exactly are the core security concerns that these actors are
worried about and what is a more opportunistic approach.
Ultimately, these two regions are going to need to build an
institutional security architecture. We can assist with that,
but our own thinking about U.S. security in the Red Sea, in the
Bal el-Mandeb, in the Gulf of Aden, we need to be thinking much
more holistically and bringing the expertise from our different
communities to bear.
I do really recommend USIP's work on this. They have been
doing incredibly important work on this issue for a long time.
Senator Kaine. I yield back. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you. There is nothing to yield back,
Senator.
Senator Kaine. I guess you are right.
The Chairman. I will be delighted----
Senator Kaine. I will yield some back next time.
The Chairman. I will put that on the record for next time.
Senator McCormick.
Senator McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member.
Thank you both for being here today.
Mr. Meservey, I understand you are a Pennsylvanian so it is
good to have you here today.
I want to start with just a word on PEPFAR. I have been a
long supporter of the President's Emergency Plan For AIDS
Relief, which was created when I served during the Bush
administration.
By some estimates that program has saved 26 million lives
in just over 20 years, so my question to you is really two
fold.
Number one, how does that program advance U.S. national
security interest. Second, some countries in Africa have
started to move to their own versions of that program. What is
the path to self-reliance and self-sufficiency for that
program?
Mr. Meservey. Yes, thank you, Senator, and greetings from
your home state.
Yes, I will take the last one first. One of the problems
that we had with PEPFAR, even though it was tremendously
successful, was that some host governments were not taking the
ownership that they needed to. It was never supposed to be an
open-ended program.
I think that--I hope that elements of this are
reconstituted. I genuinely do. Public health interventions have
been successful on their own merits.
If it is reconstituted, I think there needs to be a very
clear road map for receiving countries to take ownership.
It needs to be thoughtful and reasonable, of course, but
one of the dangers of long-running aid programs is that
eventually they just become an entitlement that countries just
receive as a matter-of-fact and do not take ownership for.
That would be one thing. Regarding--and then I think
probably with some countries you need to do an assessment of do
they all need PEPFAR anymore? Which ones really need it? Which
ones are at greatest risk?
I lived in Zambia at the height of the HIV pandemic and
that was an obvious--it was a focused country for very good
reasons. We need to continue those types of assessments.
Then, how does PEPFAR help national security interests?
One, it does contribute to soft power. It is very hard to
quantify and I think we were not good enough about getting as
much soft power as we should have from PEPFAR, but I think it
is also undeniable that it did help us in that respect.
Also, mass death in a society is fundamentally
destabilizing and it prevented mass death in some cases, and it
allowed for a much higher quality of life for many--for
millions of people, even beyond the lives----
Senator McCormick. Destabilizing, yes.
Mr. Meservey. Yes.
Senator McCormick. Thank you.
I just want to reiterate as someone who is a big supporter
of the program, the initial vision at creation was never that
it was perpetual. There was a transition to self-sufficiency.
Thank you for that and, Ambassador, thank you for being
here. We read and hear a lot about the Belt and Road Initiative
and growing influence of China in Africa and expanding security
assistance.
What challenge do those activities pose to U.S.
counterterrorism efforts and in particular what would you
suggest the United States be doing to ensure that in light of
that investment on the part of the Chinese that we are evolving
our counterterrorism efforts to be as effective as possible?
Ms. Gavin. Thank you. I think the Belt and Road
investments--certainly some of the digital Belt and Road
investments raise questions, make it difficult for us to engage
in intelligence cooperation with some of these partners because
of concerns about Chinese access, but some of the
infrastructure investments, quite frankly, redound to our
benefit too, right? We are driving on the same road that they
built and that can help us get some things done.
I do--I just want to flag that China is not going to leave
Africa, not ever, and so learning how to compete effectively
will require recognition that African governments are not going
to reject all Chinese investment and trade.
It is their largest trading partner, et cetera, but on
counterterrorism I think that it is really about influence,
trust, the kind of relationships with security establishments
that enable meaningful cooperation in any security space and
China is working very hard on establishing those kinds of
relationships.
Again, I think that the U.S. potentially has an advantage
if we can work more institutionally rather than personally
because of turnover.
Senator McCormick. To the chairman's point, yes.
Mr. Chairman, I yield as well.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. I will take it. Thank you so much.
I have on this side in order of appearance Senator Rosen,
Senator Van Hollen, Senator Booker. I know it seems like you
were here, but they actually were here before you, left, and
came back, so under the rules--sorry about that--Senator Rosen.
Senator Rosen. Thank you, Chairman Risch, Ranking Member
Shaheen. Thank you to the witnesses for your work and for your
willingness to serve.
I am going to talk a little bit about Somalia first. There
is a lot of extremist problems there because over the past year
ISIS Somalia has emerged as a key player in the Islamic State
global financial and operational network that is facilitating
the movement of money, foreign fighters, and military trainers
to Islamic State affiliates throughout Africa and beyond.
ISIS Somalia just does not pose a threat to U.S. forces and
our partners in the region, their aggressive efforts to plan
and conduct external operations are a threat to U.S. citizens
everywhere.
U.S. forces have taken action to degrade ISIS Somalia's
capability, but there is more that must be done. Ambassador,
during the last Trump administration the President withdrew
almost all the U.S. troops from Somalia. What would be the
consequences of the Administration doing that again now?
Ms. Gavin. I think the consequences would be incredibly
dangerous. The situation has evolved even from that period of
the first Trump administration and we do have two different
terrorist organizations that wish us harm and have a track
record of being able to carry out attacks at some distance.
I am sympathetic to the argument that I know my colleague
will make that it is very frustrating to have been continuing
to try to build Somali capacity to combat these threats
themselves year after year after year only to have these
efforts essentially undermined by poor governance in Somalia.
The question is what is the alternative? Being frustrated
and sort of washing our hands of it does not address these
very, very real threats.
Senator Rosen. Let me ask you this then. Research has shown
that violent extremism surges during humanitarian crises and
you talk about both not good governance and those things.
How are the Islamic insurgents in Somalia taking advantage
of these issues to recruit and what does the Administration's--
our cuts to humanitarian aid compound this to what you were
just mentioning?
Ms. Gavin. Certainly, it does feed right into the messaging
about who the enemy is, but it also creates the kind of
resource scarcity that leads to desperation, people seizing--
who might not really be ideologically aligned, but are looking
to survive.
There is a--you have to sift through these groups in
Somalia. Some are--some of it is survival. Some of it is sort
of hardcore believers. Some of it is Somali nationalism.
It is certainly not helping. It is hurting.
Senator Rosen. Thank you. I want to stay on Africa for a
minute because, Ambassador Gavin, again, this is a difficult
period for everyone residing in East Africa and the Horn. I
want to talk about women's role there.
We know it is particularly hard for women and for girls.
The war in Sudan, extremism in Somalia, the post-conflict
reconstruction in Ethiopia--they have left thousands of women
survivors of conflict-related sexual violence struggling for
justice.
Across the region women continue to battle forced
marriages, child labor, lack of social protections, and murder
just for being a woman. They struggle to break through
economically, politically, and through any social norms to gain
equality.
Ambassador, could you talk about how the U.S. has supported
women's and girls' advancements in East Africa and the Horn
and, really, the importance of doing so and, again, the impact
of the U.S. terminating these kinds of programs on the region
and success of the region.
I think women can--support of the family. It is really
critical to family structure and stability in some ways, right?
Ms. Gavin. It is--of course, it is essential and in many
African societies women are a backbone, of course, of what
creates peace and stability. You are right about the really
jaw-dropping and appalling level of sexual violence that we are
seeing associated with the conflicts in the Horn right now.
This happened in Tigray during that crisis. It is happening
in the Amhara and Oromo areas right now and, of course, Sudan's
plight is heartbreaking and when the U.S. is not there to try
and provide assistance, medical assistance, and support, and,
critically, a voice speaking out about some international
norms, I think we all are invested.
Senator Rosen. Violence against women, right?
Ms. Gavin. Yes. Then we are missing a chance to strengthen
these societies that we would like to have as peaceful
partners, going forward.
Senator Rosen. Thank you. I, too, will follow the norm and
yield back.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Rosen.
I do not mean this disrespectfully, but your criticism
about pulling troops out of that area, I think it is important
for the record to note that when you have troops there, the
question always is, is who are you going to train and who are
you going to fight with, and when you have Somalia, Puntland,
Somaliland, all of whom have disputed borders and incredibly
entangled tribal issues there, who do you stand with?
Now, obviously, we fight ISIS there and we fight Houthis
there. If we can identify them, okay, but boy, the rest of this
stuff, this is really a tough question.
I appreciate the criticism, but there is a lot more to this
than just here are the good guys and here are the bad guys.
Finding good guys is really, really difficult there.
Anyway, thank you for your thoughts.
With that, we will turn to Senator Van Hollen.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank both
of you for your testimony today.
I am actually going to pick up where Senator Rosen left off
with respect to Sudan. We are now in the third year of a brutal
civil war in Sudan.
When Secretary Rubio was here for his confirmation hearing,
he testified that helping resolve that conflict would be a top
priority of the Administration.
Clearly, that has not happened. In fact, the cuts to U.S.
humanitarian assistance have made a desperate situation in
Sudan even worse.
Ambassador Gavin, you wrote a piece for the Council for
Foreign Relations I think back in February entitled, ``The
Abandonment of Sudan.''
Obviously, we need to look for ways to put pressure on some
of the outside parties. I have proposed actually stopping U.S.
military assistance to the UAE so long as it continues to
support the murderous RSF, and I think I heard you say, Mr.
Meservey, that the RSF could not continue its military
operations without that outside help from the UAE.
Let me--if I could start with you, Ambassador Gavin. What
should we do and should we be using more of our leverage to put
pressure on some of the outside parties that are fueling this
murderous conflict, including the UAE's support for the RSF?
Ms. Gavin. Yes, I absolutely think we should be using more
of our leverage with the UAE and having real conversations. I
think Emirati officials are aware that the RSF is never going
to govern all of Sudan.
They have concerns about what the other side of the coin
looks like and so do we, frankly, or we should, and what we
have called the SAF for a long time is a coalition of entities
and actors, some of which are highly problematic in terms of
U.S. interests, and I do not think that that is likely to hold
together in a scenario where there could be a military
solution.
The reality is there is no military solution. What needs to
happen is a set of talks that involve Sudanese actors, pressure
on these external actors who continue to arm and fuel both
antagonists, but most importantly, really, a greater effort to
elevate the civilian voices in Sudan who have never given up.
They continue to be in many, many parts of the country the
only source of medical care, of food, which is quite scarce,
and they have been organizing to try to come up with some clear
principles they would like all parties to agree to. That needs
to be raised up and given validation and credibility from the
U.S.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you.
Given the time I am going to turn briefly now to Ethiopia
and Eritrea. I think we all know that Ethiopia stands at a
pretty critical juncture as it grapples with the aftermath of
the conflict in Tigray, and as we speak we see Eritrea.
I think the leader there called up the troops--at least
there are reports to that effect. I guess my question for each
of you is if you were in charge right now of U.S. policy, what
practical steps would you take today to try to address the
bubbling, really, almost boiling situation with respect to
Ethiopia and Eritrea?
Why do we not start with you, Mr. Meservey?
Mr. Meservey. Yes, thank you. I think the there is a few
key issues here. One is that the Eritreans are still inside of
Ethiopian territory in western Tigray in violation of the
Pretoria Agreement, which is what ended the Tigray war
ostensibly.
There has to be a process for having them leave, but, of
course, their presence is also tied into the internal divisions
where the Amhara claim that area. The Tigrayans also claim it.
It is a major flash point.
I think right now what the U.S. can do, and I believe what
it did do along with other partner countries, was to
unequivocally demonstrate to both sides that we are watching
and that a conflict would be unacceptable, and then it should
offer its good offices for either convening discussions or
trying to mediate around some of these issues, but they are
intensely difficult and I am not, frankly, terribly positive
about the immediate prospects for resolving them.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you.
Ambassador Gavin.
Ms. Gavin. I would just quickly agree and add that
mobilizing more of the AU member states to insist on actual
implementation of the Pretoria Agreement would be a helpful
focal point. This is something everybody has already agreed to,
but it has not been fully implemented. It is in this strange
limbo.
I think that getting that kind of regional engagement would
be helpful.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you both.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Cruz.
Senator Cruz. Thank you.
Mr. Meservey, as we have been discussing, I believe the
Chinese Communist Party presents the most significant long-term
strategic threat to the United States. I also believe that
China is a global threat that has to be confronted globally,
including in Africa.
We have a vast range of interests in Africa and a
complicated security architecture. Our interests there are
counterterrorism, trade and critical mineral supply lines,
global biosecurity, preventing illegal immigration that
threatens allies in other parts of the world, blocking illicit
finance of hostile actors, and even, importantly, space
development.
Across Africa again and again, the Chinese have exploited
local political, economic, and sometimes even cultural
conditions to undermine American national security interests.
Sometimes they do it by securing bilateral and multilateral
agreements that block American goals. Other times they do it by
creating instability, but they are actively doing it.
Talk a little bit about the specific tactics that China is
using in East Africa and the Horn and what are the specific
conditions they are exploiting?
Mr. Meservey. Yes. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
China, first of all, has a long-standing strategy for the
continent that has been a topic of this conversation as the
U.S. does not have anything comparable, and they are highly
disciplined about implementing it.
That is sort of the foundation of what they are doing. As
far as specific tactics, they like to engage at a very senior
level--the highest possible senior level. They do that in a
variety of ways.
Some of it is as open as bribery, but a lot of it is
helping leaders, for instance, with key infrastructure projects
that helps them politically in the domestic space or just
expressing solidarity. That rhetoric is important.
Even the diplomatic exchanges they engage, as I said, at a
very high level, but they do it constantly as well. I
referenced in my opening remarks over a hundred visits from
senior Chinese officials to this area.
They engage at a much higher tempo and at a much more
senior level than U.S. diplomats do. Those are some of the
specific tactics that they use, but they are not unique to East
Africa.
They use them across the continent to great effects, and
then easy money loans, very important to their strategy.
Investment trade agreements--we are seeing more and more free
trade agreements where the so-called green lanes with their
preferential access to the Chinese market for agricultural
goods.
It is genuinely a wide array of tactics that are grounded
in a long-term strategy.
Senator Cruz. How has Chinese involvement impacted the
ongoing conflicts in the region?
Mr. Meservey. Yes. I think in--usually China actually
prefers stability because that facilitates what they are trying
to do in other areas. They generally try to stay out of these
types of things.
We have seen some sort of, I would argue, weak diplomatic
efforts from the Chinese. They do have a special envoy for the
region who occasionally goes and talks to the various leaders,
but I do not think anything substantive comes of it.
They do contribute to peacekeeping operations, but that is
much more, I would argue, about them building both diplomatic
heft, but also capabilities for and experience for the troops
in these types of austere environments where they are often
put.
I think they are not nearly as helpful as they could be. I
think where they actively are negative are the Chinese weapons
that flow through the area.
Back in the original Sudan civil war they armed the Omar
Al-Bashir regime, which was genociding Darfuris at the time.
They armed both Ethiopia and Eritrea during their border war in
the late 1990s and Chinese weapons continue to flood the area.
We are seeing Chinese bombs and other things probably
reexported from UAE show up in Sudan.
Senator Cruz. Many of the agreements China has been locking
in are explicitly military agreements. Since 2017 China has
operated a military base in Djibouti. The CCP Beijing is
actively working to deepen ties across the region to secure
greater access to the Red Sea and key maritime routes.
Describe the nature of China's specifically military
cooperation in the Horn.
Mr. Meservey. Yes. You referenced the flagship, which is
the Djibouti base, but we have seen a very real uptick in
military trainings.
I think it was 2 or 3 years ago they inaugurated--the
Chinese inaugurated an annual meeting for African defense
chiefs. They convened in Beijing, and that has been ongoing, I
believe, for 3 years, if I remember correctly.
I also referenced in my written testimony the fact that PLA
Navy vessels participate in these anti-piracy task forces in
the Gulf of Aden.
They then will go all around the continent doing port calls
both on the Indian Ocean, but also the Atlantic Ocean side and
the--that is clearly an effort to build blue water naval
capabilities that they covet so they can project power into the
South China Sea and probably for an eventual invasion of
Taiwan.
Again, the weapons, so weapons training deployments, and I
already referenced the peacekeeping operations. I would say
those are the primary elements.
Senator Cruz. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cruz.
Senator Booker.
Senator Booker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to start by adding to, I think, some of the
sentiments expressed that we have a colossal problem right now
by our failing to understand that if you look at all of
humanity, the future is in so many ways Africa.
We have one out of every four people on the planet Earth
and by 2050 are going to be on the continent one out of every
three working-age people.
The continent is indispensable when it comes to the future
strength, opportunities, prosperity, health of Americans. It is
stunning to me that we are lacking a vision for engagement with
the continent and are making such colossal mistakes.
What the Trump administration is doing right now is not
only unacceptable, but it is a series of self-inflicted wounds
when we cut the kind of programs that have created economic
stability and opportunity for American companies, that have
gutted public health and our response to public health because
a public health crisis anywhere now is a threat to public
health everywhere.
We are stopping, especially as we see the Tanzania
elections and the Uganda elections and the instabilities
there--we are cutting back our resources helping with
democratic stability at a time that democracies are under
retreat all across the globe, and the democratic freedoms and
ideals that we preach are being undermined by forces that do
not share our values.
We are in a state of crisis right now when it comes to our
relations with the continent and other competitors of ours,
from Iranians to Russians to Chinese to people that do not
always align with us, from the Emiratis and others, are
flooding the zone where we are retreating in a stunning way.
We are seeing our retreat on public health, on economic
empowerment, on national security and creating a more volatile
and dangerous environment where there are forces there that
want to see the destruction of America, and there is no place
that to me that this is more obvious in just this retreat we
have, even in--where our embassies and consulates that are--
that this administration is slating to close.
China has embassies in every single country and we now see
a list that consulates and embassies all over the world, but
six embassies and two consulates in Africa, including around
the Horn, are being shut down.
When I travel through Africa, the power of our presence
there, our ability to combat misinformation and propaganda, our
ability to create deep partnerships and connection, we are
truly pursuing a set of policies that are going to undermine
America's safety, security, and economic strength in the future
and make us be more targeted by forces from the Red Sea all the
way to terrorist attacks here at home based upon the
instability and folks who are focusing and targeting and trying
to undermine America.
Again, I am stunned. I have already been upset in past
administrations with our failure to prioritize, but what is
happening right now is just utterly stunning and generations of
Americans will pay a price for it unless we find a way, in a
bipartisan way to focus and do more.
In my scarce remaining time I just want to focus in on
Sudan. You call it, Ambassador, rightfully the worst
humanitarian crisis on the globe, and if you want to talk about
ethnic cleansing as the Administration rolls out the red carpet
for some South Africans recently, the horrors of what is going
on there, the instability it is causing to South Sudan, to
Chad, the threat to the Horn in general, it cannot be
overstated.
If you--in the time that you have before me can you please
help us as a committee understand that the failure of American
focus--there was a bipartisan letter we just put forward to get
a special envoy--just the failure of Americans to focus on this
is not only contributing to greater humanitarian crises, but
creating a level of instability and crisis that advantages
forces that we are opposing like the Chinese and the Russians
and more.
Ms. Gavin. I can take a stab at it.
You are absolutely right. Russia thrives in environments of
chaos where they can cut a deal to do regime security whether
the regime is legitimate or not, and get access to resources.
Sudan's problem is bigger than Sudan. My concern is that we
are going to end up with this belt of metastasizing instability
all the way across the continent from the Atlantic to the Red
Sea.
You have the crisis in the Sahel. Things are not looking
great in Central Africa, although I am hopeful that some
advances will bear fruit, and then you have what is happening
in the Horn.
As these conflicts spill over, they relate to each other
and it gets harder and harder to disentangle the threads,
right?
It is hard enough to make peace with two or three parties.
Trying to do it with 16 is a very, very tall order.
So I agree with you. I think that a de facto partition does
not mean stability. These are fractious armed entities on
either side and it is, I think, important always to remember
that Osama bin Laden used to operate from Sudan. The Islamist
forces that are a part of that Port Sudan coalition have a long
history of wishing America harm.
Senator Booker. Mr. Chairman, before I yield, there is a
staggering moral failure here in our ability to exercise
American influence--greater American influence on this crisis,
but what is worse than this is I fear that if we do not--are
not successful in addressing the abject lack of attention,
focus, and energy from a diplomatic perspective that this
crisis will grow worse and have implications on our own
national security, as our witness indicated, and I am hoping
that we as a committee can take even more actions to try to get
the Trump administration to give a higher priority to solving
this crisis and showing some true American leadership.
The Chairman. Senator, we--my partner here and I made the
decision to hold this hearing for the reasons you have
indicated. There are serious problems here, and as you
indicated or as has been suggested, everything has to be
prioritized, and the difficulty is, as always, it is a question
of money.
Going into debt a trillion dollars every 150 days is
unsustainable, so where do you put the money?
There are things here that absolutely cry out for our
attention, and the other fact that I think has been underscored
here again and again and again is that Africa has such a
galloping influence on the planet that it really does need our
attention, particularly when it is getting such close attention
by people who have values that are very different than ours
other than democracy and respect for human rights. That was the
purpose of the hearing.
Senator Booker. Mr. Chairman, the one thing that I would
request, and I have a feeling that the Trump administration
will listen to you more than me, this does not cost any money
to simply nominate ambassadors to key countries in Africa.
The Chairman. Senator----
Senator Booker. There is a scarce lack of even them coming
forward with putting up leaders as we see them filling posts
from European nations and others, but in critical areas we are
not even getting ambassadorial nominees.
The Chairman. A fair point. We get that, but, again, this
comes back to there is only so many hours in a day and, as you
know, moving ambassadors through here is a--without regard to
the politics, moving ambassadors through here is a very
cumbersome job that the Founding Fathers handed us with the
system we go through, but thank you for your thoughts.
Senator Booker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. I know we are out of time, but I would
like to just make two points. One is apropos the earlier
conversation about PEPFAR and it not being an entitlement.
I would like to point out that multiple African countries
have, in fact, increased their financing to help pay for PEPFAR
and to address HIV/AIDS.
I would hope that we would continue to help work in
partnership with them on that issue. The other thing I would
point out with respect to Sudan, one of the things that we know
from the data is that when women are at the table in
negotiations that those negotiations are more likely to last
longer term and more likely to be successful.
It is a mistake we made in Afghanistan when we totally left
women out of those negotiations for conflict and it is the
reason why I have been so supportive of the Women, Peace and
Security legislation that we passed, that President Trump
signed in his first term and that now has decided to get rid of
because he thinks it is a DEI program.
It is not a DEI program. It is a program that recognizes
that women make up half of the world and they need to be part
of negotiations and part of ongoing efforts that we make and
that we get a benefit from doing that.
I just want to put that on the record, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Shaheen.
That will conclude the hearing, and I want to sincerely
thank both of you for what I think has been an eye-opening
experience for people who really are not exposed to this as we
all are every day on this committee and in the lane you work
in.
For information of the members, the record will remain open
until close of business tomorrow, May 14. We ask the witnesses
if they do get such a question that you respond as promptly as
possible and your response will be included in the record.
Also, I am going to enter in the record the speech that has
been referred to regarding Dr. William Ruto given April 23,
2025, in Beijing, China.
[Editor's note.--The information referred to above can be found
in the ``Additional Material Submitted for the Record'' section
at the end of this document.]
The Chairman. With that and the thanks of the committee,
the hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Responses of Mr. Joshua Meservey to Questions
Submitted by Senator James E. Risch
Question. What went wrong with the U.S.' Mogadishu-focused strategy
in Somalia?
Answer. The key flaw in the U.S.' Mogadishu-focused strategy is
that it ignored the reality that a strong centralized government cannot
work in the current Somali context. Most Somalis' preeminent loyalty is
to clan--or, more precisely, to even smaller sub-clan formations--and
not to any government. That is likely one reason why Somalia has scant
historical practice of strong centralized government. The exception is
the tenure of dictator Mohamed Siad Barre who ruled so disastrously
that Somalia eventually plunged into failed state status.
There is also a long history in Somalia of clan competition,
including violence, that has bred distrust among the clans. Barre's
two-decade rule likely exacerbated clannism in the country. As just one
example, a core Somaliland grievance today against southern Somalia is
the extreme anti-Isaaq violence Barre's government unleashed that was
often perpetrated by Isaaq clan rivals.
Despite these realities, U.S. policy for over a decade has focused
on supporting a centralized government in Somalia often at the expense
of engagement with sub-national entities that better map the
distribution of clans. Such impracticality cannot succeed, and it has
crippled American policy in the region.
Furthermore, Washington has too frequently ignored, or been too
blase about, the widespread corruption in Somalia's government and
military. Policymakers must sometimes make unpalatable decisions for
the sake of a higher national interest, yet the U.S. has responded so
weakly to corruption for so long that Mogadishu's elites likely
calculate they have little to fear from Washington on this score.
Corruption undermines the scant legitimacy the central government has
as well as the fight against al-Shabaab.
Question. Can we work with the federal government and member states
without picking sides?
Answer. One driver of political instability in Somalia since the
advent of the federal government system has been the contest for power
between the states and the central government. Both sides seem to
believe they are fighting a zero-sum contest for power. That would make
it difficult for the U.S. to appear to not be choosing sides if it
engaged unilaterally with the states.
Nonetheless, the U.S. is obliged to pursue the good of its own
people first. Engaging unilaterally with Somalia's states has a greater
likelihood of protecting American interests in the country and region
than continuing the demonstrably failed approach of granting the
Mogadishu government a virtual veto over what Washington can and cannot
do with the states.
Question. What would more thoughtful engagement with Somaliland
look like?
Answer. The U.S. should unilaterally engage with Somaliland as its
interests dictate and as other countries like the UAE already do. Given
its pro-American orientation, diplomatic relations with Taiwan,
strategic location, recently renovated and expanded Berbera port and
airport, relative stability, and its decades' long practice of
democracy, Somaliland is an obvious American partner in a difficult but
important region.
Before ramping up engagement with Somaliland, Washington should
create a workable and clear roadmap for building the relationship.
Unless U.S. national interests demand otherwise, engagement should
begin with basic and relatively easy to achieve measures. Those could
include agreeing a bilateral trade and investment framework; arranging
an American commercial delegation visit; deploying technical experts
from the relevant U.S. agencies to help Somaliland write a mining code
and improve its economic regulatory environment; and a U.S. Geological
Survey project to map Somaliland's natural resources.
In tandem or in succession, the U.S. and Somaliland could intensify
the relationship through security cooperation activities, including
bolstering the Somaliland Coast Guard's capabilities and including
Somaliland in the U.S. National Guard's State Partnership Program.
Further measures should include establishing a military base in Berbera
and a consulate office in Hargeisa, and, ultimately, recognition by the
U.S. of Somaliland's independence. As part of that effort, the U.S.
should coordinate with other countries that are willing to recognize
Somaliland.
Wherever practicable, the U.S. should partner with Taiwan in these
efforts to enhance the trilateral relationship.
Speech Given at Peking University, Beijing, China By
Dr. William Ruto, President of the Republic of Kenya, Dated April 23,
2025
Submitted by Senator James E. Risch
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
------
Article From KBC Digital Regarding President William Ruto's Visit to
China, Dated April 23, 2025
Submitted by Senator Tim Kaine
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]