Les États-Unis autorisent la participation des joueurs iraniens à la Coupe du Monde 2026 sur leur sol, mais fixent une condition précise concernant la composition de leur délégation. Le secrétaire d’État américain a détaillé les modalités d’entrée sur le territoire dans un contexte géopolitique tendu. Selon les informations rapportées par Al Jazeera, Washington ne s’oppose […]

Donald Trump a prolongé cette semaine le cessez-le-feu avec l’Iran, tout en maintenant un blocus naval, dans l’attente d’une proposition de Téhéran pour de nouvelles discussions. Cependant, l’administration américaine est confrontée à une échéance législative interne concernant le déploiement de ses forces armées. Selon les informations rapportées par Al Jazeera, le président américain a jusqu’au […]

U.S. President Donald Trump has publicly expressed his excitement over the signing of a peace deal between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, saying his administration has secured “a lot of the mineral rights from the Congo.” This has raised eyebrows among those critical of the potentially exploitative effects of a proposed mineral security deal between the U.S. and the DRC.

The shaky and sometimes testy relations between the Congo and Rwanda already complicate the implementation of this deal; however, Trump is optimistic that the agreement will hold. “If anyone violates this agreement, there will be consequences,” he said.

Some of the terms of the deal, which include the repatriation of refugees in both countries and the “social reintegration” of former rebels who lay down their arms, will most likely stretch the limits of Congo-Rwanda relations. With Trump keen on ensuring things happen, however, the economic emphasis may take precedence over proper justice. This aligns with the history of the Congo as a country that has consistently been exploited by external forces due to its abundance of natural minerals.

Government officials from the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda signed a peace deal in Washington, D.C. on Friday, June 27, a culmination of a U.S.-led mediation effort aimed at reducing tensions between the two nations. It is expected that this agreement will serve as a concrete step toward ending hostilities in the region. The deal will also benefit the U.S. government and American companies by improving access to critical mineral mining operations in Congo.

Hostilities between the neighboring African countries resumed earlier this year after the M23 rebels took over cities in the mineral-rich eastern region of Congo with purported assistance from Rwanda. The armed group is reportedly backed financially by Rwanda, while thousands of soldiers from the Rwandan army are alleged to have assisted M23’s march into eastern Congo.

The U.S.-backed deal could be a major accomplishment, considering that both countries have been at odds for over two decades. However, peace is not yet guaranteed. M23 has repeatedly stated its preference to negotiate with the Congolese government, meaning the group could interpret this deal as not binding on its interests. In March, the group boycotted planned peace talks, protesting sanctions placed on some of its high-ranking officials.

Speaking to the Associated Press earlier this week, M23 spokesman Oscar Balinda stated that the U.S.-facilitated deal doesn’t concern the rebels. Without assurances that the armed group will vacate the eastern region, the effectiveness of the deal is highly uncertain, meaning the Congo will have to rely even more on its potentially momentous mining-for-security agreement with the U.S., which has been criticized for its long-term imbalance and extractive nature.

The U.S. had initially set the exit of all Rwandan troops from Congo as a condition for the deal to be signed; however, the demand had not been met and was subsequently dropped. While Rwanda has consistently denied arming and supporting M23, it says operations in Congo are an act of self-defense, as it considers armed groups domiciled in its neighbor an existential threat, especially the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), which carried out the Rwandan genocide over 30 years ago.

Uncertainties remain with this deal; both Rwanda and Congo have yet to put on a friendly facade. Just yesterday, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (AfCHPR) dismissed Rwanda’s objection that it could not hear a case in which the Congolese government accuses Rwanda of grave human rights abuses in Congolese territory.

Congo is accusing Rwanda of mobilizing its troops and working with proxies to commit atrocities, including massacres, sexual violence, and forced displacement of civilians.

Earlier this month, Rwanda announced that it is withdrawing from the Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS) due to ongoing complaints by the Congo, which have resulted in international sanctions. Rwanda’s foreign affairs minister, Olivier Nduhungirehe, said Congo was “still whining around in all regional and international organizations accusing Rwanda of its turpitudes, not to mention crying out for sanctions.”

Considering the shaky nature of relations between both countries, it remains to be seen how effective the U.S.-backed deal will be. “The heart of this peace agreement is the decision to establish a standing Joint Security Coordination Mechanism between Rwanda and the DRC,” Nduhungirehe said at the signing ceremony, an optimistic stance without much evidence to support it for now.

This story was originally posted June 27 at 4:03 p.m. and has been updated.

July 2, 11:12 a.m. Updated to include U.S. President Donald Trump mineral deal statements

The African Union (AU) has finally expressed concerns over a new travel ban imposed by the U.S. government under the leadership of Donald Trump following a prolonged period of silence. Ten of the 19 countries affected are African countries, including seven whose citizens have been banned from traveling to the U.S.

In its statement, the AU lamented “the potential negative impact of such measures on people-to-people ties, educational exchange, commercial engagement, and the broader diplomatic relations that have been carefully nurtured over decades.” The commission also called on the U.S. government to engage in a constructive dialogue with the affected African countries; however, that appeal may fall on deaf ears considering Trump’s stance on immigration and general attitude towards Africa.

The order prevents citizens from 12 countries from entering the U.S. entirely, while those from nine countries are subject to heightened visa scrutiny and entry restrictions. Eritrea, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Libya, Somalia, and Chad are the six African countries with outright bans on immigrants.

Trump’s order statement alleges visa overstay rates from these countries, inadequate passport systems, and disregard for U.S. immigration laws. Chad was implicated for having “one of the highest overstay rates,” with nearly 50 percent of tourists and 55 percent of students alleged to be offenders. In return, Chad’s President Mahamat Idriss Déby has announced the suspension of visa issuances to U.S. citizens “in accordance with the principles of reciprocity.”

Somalia and Libya were also included on the ban list for facing ongoing terrorism threats, while Eritrea is accused of refusing to accept deportees.

Intending travelers from Togo, Burundi, and Sierra Leone will face heightened visa screening and restrictions, with visa overstays cited as the main reason for these countries’ inclusion on the list. Laos, Cuba, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela are also on the restricted list, while an outright ban extends to Haiti, Iran, Afghanistan, and several other countries.

Several exceptions have been made, such as competing athletes, as the U.S. is set to host next year’s soccer World Cup, and Los Angeles will be the host for the 2028 Olympics. Exceptions also apply to Green card holders, dual citizens, those granted asylum, and individuals from banned countries who are applying for visas through family members who are American citizens.

The number of affected African countries is lower than the initially speculated 22 African countries that could be affected, based on an initial draft list from earlier this year. However, some countries not on this ban list are already being affected by the Trump administration’s antagonizing stance towards immigrants from Africa and the global south.

In April, the U.S. government announced that it had revoked the visas of all South Sudanese immigrants, saying its government was unwilling to accept its deported citizens, despite the U.S. not being certain of the nationality of the person deported. The Department of Homeland Security also said it would not renew the temporary protected status (TPS) of nearly 8,000 Cameroonians who came to the U.S. as asylum seekers.

For now, the priority of the U.S., where immigration from Africa is concerned, is bringing in Afrikaner refugees despite clear evidence that there is no white genocide going on in South Africa.

A plane carrying the first batch of white South Africans granted refugee status by the U.S. government landed near Washington, D.C. today, Monday May 12, 2025. The 49 Afrikaner refugees are entering the U.S. at a time when the Trump administration is bent on dismantling most of the country’s refugee resettlement programs and generally laying siege on immigrants and immigration rights.

Earlier this year, U.S. President Donald Trump claimed that South Africa’s government is persecuting its minority white population and proceeded to sign an executive order stopping all financial aid to South Africa. Trump also offered resettlement to white South Africans, and about 70,000 people reportedly indicated interest in relocating to the U.S. as refugees.

The first batch of refugees is part of a “much larger-scale relocation effort,” according to White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. The Trump administration’s acceptance of Afrikaner refugees is the latest escalation of its strained relationship with South Africa, even though its stance is partly based on gross misinformation.

Earlier this year, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa signed a land expropriation bill that gives the government the power to take over lands that haven’t been used for long periods and lands not being adequately utilized. Following loud complaints by the Afrikaner-representing civil group Afriforum, Trump went on to state that land is being arbitrarily taken away from white South Africans and also claimed that the Afrikaner population is being targeted through racist policies.

While many white South Africans have ridiculed the idea that they need to be rescued and seek asylum in the U.S., the Trump administration has made the refugee program for Afrikaners a priority. This is happening at a time when refugees and protected immigrants are having their rights to remain in the U.S. revoked.

Last month, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that it would not renew the temporary protected status (TPS) of some 7,900 Cameroonians. TPS, granted to people from countries dealing with armed conflicts and other dire circumstances, is routinely renewed every 18 months. The decision to end the TPS designation for the thousands of affected Cameroonians could lead to forced removals from the U.S. by late June.

Over half a million migrants from Afghanistan, Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela have had their TPS designation revoked.

Also, last month, the U.S. government announced that it had revoked the visas of all South Sudanese and placed travel restrictions on the East African country. It cited South Sudan’s unwillingness to accept the return of its citizens in “a timely manner.” South Sudan’s government had initially rejected the deportation of an individual from the U.S., stating that the person was from Congo.

However, following strong words from U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, South Sudan accepted the deported individual, hoping to undo the visa revocation announcement, which didn’t happen. South Sudan, the world’s youngest country, is in danger of plunging into another civil war, and the visa revocation endangers the lives of those who successfully sought asylum in the U.S. and could be forcefully deported.

Trump’s stance towards Africa (and the global south) has mainly been antagonistic. He infamously referred to African countries as “shithole” countries during his first term. This makes the extension of refugee status to white South Africans a curious case, if not disturbing.

South Africa’s former ambassador to the U.S., Ebrahim Rasool, was expelled by the American government after he suggested that white supremacy plays a role in Trump’s relationship with South Africa.

According to a draft list, 22 of the 43 countries that could face travel restrictions to the U.S. are African countries. Libya, Somalia, and Sudan are among eight countries that could face an outright travel ban. Eritrea, South Sudan, and Sierra Leone would face travel restrictions, and citizens from 16 other African countries would need two months to clear serious security checks.

When U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced in April that President Donald Trump's administration had revoked visas for all South Sudanese citizens, citing South Sudan’s failure to accept deportees “in a timely manner,” it sounded like South Sudan was being punished for refusing to cooperate.

But the reality was far more ridiculous and unfair.

The problem centered on a single passenger: a man on a U.S. deportation flight whom South Sudan refused to accept because he was Congolese, not South Sudanese. Yet America didn’t care.

Even after South Sudan capitulated days later and agreed to take in the Congolese man, “in the spirit of friendly relations,” the U.S. has kept the visa revocation in place. Friendly relations, it seems, are one-sided.

Across social media, South Sudanese described it as American bullying. South Sudan’s Information Minister, Michael Makuei Lueth, told the media that the U.S. was “attempting to find faults with the tense situation” in the country.

“No sovereign nation would accept foreign deportees,” he said.

South Sudan is the world’s youngest country and is on the brink of renewed civil war, threatening over 11 million people.

And yet, from the African Union and other African heads of state? Silence.

That silence is telling and extremely dangerous.

South Sudan’s visa crisis came amid rumors of a draft U.S. travel ban list in which most of the countries are African.

This is just one example of how Trump’s second-term “America First” agenda has hurt Africa, with little pushback from leaders. Since returning to office, he has frozen billions of dollars in aid, ended Power Africa, and imposed new tariffs that threaten African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) trade and jobs across the continent. His policies are also threatening African students studying in the U.S.

Even South Africa, already punished after Trump suspended aid and controversially offered asylum to white Afrikaners, stood alone as it expelled the U.S. ambassador. There is no solidarity from neighbors. No AU statement.

Some may see America stepping back as a push toward self-reliance or simply wish to avoid Washington’s ire. And the African Union may still be adjusting under new leadership. The newly elected AU Commission Chairperson and commissioners took office in March.

But history shows the AU can speak up. In 2017, then-AU Commission Chair Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma condemned Trump’s travel ban on several Muslim-majority countries.

“The very country to which many of our people were taken as slaves during the transatlantic slave trade has now decided to ban refugees from some of our countries,” she told the AU summit in Addis Ababa. “What do we do about this? Indeed, this is one of the greatest challenges to our unity and solidarity.”

Today, the challenge remains, but unity and solidarity seem missing.

If Africa’s institutions won’t stand up for their citizens, who will?