The end of USAID’s current aid structure should not mean the end of US support for Africa.

Even when it comes to international aid and assistance, strategic geopolitical interests are always at play. Recently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the results of the review of programs carried out by the US Agency for International Development. This review resulted in an 83 percent cut in aid, significantly affecting many African countries. The decision has reignited debates about the ongoing competition between the US and China in Africa and the heightened risk of humanitarian crises that could arise from these funding reductions.

While competition for influence in Africa is a reality, framing it as part of a great power struggle is misleading. The US and China have taken vastly different approaches to engagement in Africa, and these cuts to USAID funding are unlikely to significantly alter China’s long-term strategy. Moreover, the presence of USAID has not deterred China from expanding its influence on the continent. Instead, the changes in US policy open the door for a fresh approach to American support—one that prioritizes African responsibility and transparency over unchecked aid flows.

According to the Congressional Research Service, sub-Saharan Africa has been the largest regional recipient of American foreign assistance. Over the past decade, the State Department and USAID have administered approximately $8 billion in aid annually to Africa. Countries such as Nigeria, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya, and South Africa have been among the primary beneficiaries. In addition to direct US aid, African nations also receive assistance through other American agencies and Washington’s contributions to multilateral organizations.

Over the past decade, about 70 percent of American aid to Africa has been allocated to health programs, with a primary focus on HIV/AIDS. Additional funding has supported agriculture, economic growth, security, democracy promotion, human rights, and education. Several major initiatives, such as the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, Feed the Future, and Power Africa, have been instrumental in addressing key issues. However, most aid is delivered through contractors, nongovernmental organizations, and multilateral bodies, rather than direct government-to-government assistance. This indirect distribution has created inefficiencies, as significant portions of the funds go toward administrative costs rather than directly benefiting the people in need.

This inefficiency is not unique to USAID; rather, it is a common issue in most foreign assistance programs and charitable organizations. A considerable portion of aid funds is used to cover operational expenses rather than achieving tangible results. The complexity of cross-border programs further exacerbates this issue, making positive change slower and less efficient. In the case of USAID, these inefficiencies have been particularly pronounced.

Despite these challenges, the US should not abandon Africa altogether. Instead, a recalibrated approach is needed—one that fosters real and positive change while reinforcing African leadership. The situation is somewhat analogous to Europe’s security dilemma, where strategic recalibration rather than complete withdrawal is the key. Africa deserves the generosity of the American people, but Washington must ensure that aid is allocated and executed in a manner that maximizes impact. This should be viewed as a reset, not a cancellation.

US aid policy must move beyond ideological motivations and focus on solving real problems while reducing Africa’s reliance on perpetual foreign aid. The ultimate goal should be to empower African leaders and institutions to take control of their economic future. Two key areas require immediate attention: poverty alleviation and the empowerment of local management. However, healthcare remains the most urgent concern.

Africa is paradoxically both a land of immense natural wealth and extreme poverty. Despite possessing some of the world’s largest mineral reserves—including gold, diamonds, platinum, copper, and uranium—many African nations continue to struggle with severe economic hardship. Control over these resources has historically been a source of military conflicts and external interventions. Similarly, Africa is a major producer of oil and gas, with countries such as Nigeria, Angola, and Algeria leading in petroleum reserves, while Libya and Egypt play significant roles in gas production. Additionally, Africa’s vast renewable energy potential, particularly solar power in the Sahara, holds the promise of transforming the continent’s energy landscape.

While Africa’s agricultural potential remains largely untapped, it is home to 60 percent of the world’s uncultivated arable land. It already leads in the production of commodities such as cocoa, coffee, tea, and timber. The region’s fisheries offer another source of economic promise. However, the reality is starkly different from these theoretical potentials. The disconnect between Africa’s resource wealth and its persistent poverty highlights the shortcomings of foreign aid and its structural inefficiencies. Rather than fostering self-sufficiency, aid has often perpetuated dependency while allowing external powers to gain control over resources in exchange for minimal infrastructure development.

This historical pattern has, in some ways, shifted the burden of economic responsibility away from African leaders and onto Western powers. In doing so, it has given external actors near-unfettered access to Africa’s wealth in return for relatively minor developmental contributions. By contrast, the Gulf Cooperation Council’s approach to engagement in Africa has generally been more pragmatic and mutually beneficial, earning it greater respect and acceptance.

For these reasons, the end of USAID’s current aid structure should not mean the end of US support for Africa. Any new American approach should prioritize helping Africa gain control over its own resources and development trajectory. This strategy should not be driven by a desire to counter Chinese or Russian influence but rather by the genuine spirit of American generosity and ethical responsibility. Such an approach would lay the foundation for a more sustainable and mutually beneficial US-Africa partnership.

A reformed aid strategy should focus on infrastructure development, technology transfer, and education to empower African nations to manage their own wealth effectively. Economic partnerships should replace traditional aid, ensuring that Africa is not merely the recipient of assistance but an active participant in its own development. Strengthening governance and transparency mechanisms will be crucial to ensuring that resources are used effectively and equitably.

The US has a unique opportunity to redefine its role in Africa. By shifting from a model of dependency-driven aid to one that fosters self-reliance, Washington can build a stronger and more lasting alliance with African nations. The ultimate goal should be to create a framework where aid is no longer necessary because African nations have developed the capacity to manage their resources and economies independently. In doing so, the US can demonstrate that its support for Africa is not just about competing with other global powers but about upholding a genuine commitment to the continent’s long-term prosperity.

Whether the bill is truly an infringement on religious freedoms or a necessary step toward greater transparency and accountability in Waqf administration

India’s Waqf Amendment Bill, 2024, has ignited widespread debate and strong reactions, particularly within the Muslim community. Many critics argue that the proposed changes pose a serious threat to the sanctity of religious endowments, raising concerns about potential government overreach and the erosion of long-held community rights.

The controversy has fueled protests, social media discussions, and legal debates, with different factions interpreting the bill’s provisions in varying ways.

Amid the uproar, a detailed analysis by senior journalist Harsh Ranjan, published in The Statesman newspaper, sheds light on the actual intent and implications of the amendment. His article aims to cut through misinformation and present a fact-based breakdown of the bill, explaining how it seeks to address longstanding issues of mismanagement, corruption, and land encroachments within Waqf properties.

By offering a balanced perspective, the analysis clarifies whether the bill is truly an infringement on religious freedoms or a necessary step toward greater transparency and accountability in Waqf administration.

The Purpose of Waqf and the Need for Reform

Waqf properties are meant to serve the welfare of the Muslim community, supporting initiatives such as education, healthcare, and religious activities. However, over the years, numerous instances of land grabbing, fraudulent claims, and misuse by politically connected individuals have come to light.

Instead of benefiting underprivileged Muslims—particularly women—Waqf properties have often been exploited for personal gains.

Despite multiple amendments in the past, previous laws failed to address these concerns effectively. The Waqf Amendment Bill, 2024, is a legislative attempt to correct these issues by ensuring that Waqf properties are protected and utilized as originally intended.

Key Features of the Waqf Amendment Bill, 2024

The Bill introduces several crucial measures aimed at transparency, accountability, and legal ownership verification. Below are the major aspects of the amendment:

1. Protection of Waqf Properties Through Digital Record-Keeping

One of the primary concerns with Waqf property management has been the lack of proper identification and record-keeping.

The amendment mandates:

• Digitization of all Waqf properties.
• Prevention of encroachments through better documentation and transparency.
• Swift resolution of disputes related to Waqf properties.

By introducing a digital registry, the bill aims to curb unauthorized claims and fraudulent transactions, ensuring that endowments remain dedicated to their intended charitable and religious purposes.

2. Restriction on Fraudulent Waqf Declarations

A key change is the restoration of the pre-2013 definition of Waqf property dedication. The 2013 amendment allowed any person to dedicate property as Waqf, which led to numerous fraudulent claims. The new amendment:

• Limits Waqf dedication to legal owners of the property who are of the Islamic faith.
• Requires the person dedicating a property to have been practicing Islam for at least five years.
• Mandates verification of ownership before Waqf status is granted.

This measure ensures that only genuine religious endowments are recognized and prevents fraudulent conversions of property into Waqf status.

3. Removal of the “Waqf by User” Clause

Previously, properties could be classified as Waqf based on long-term usage rather than legal documentation. This led to disputes where even government-owned properties were wrongly classified as Waqf.

The amendment:

• Requires formal Waqf deeds for any new Waqf declaration.
• Protects existing registered Waqf properties unless they are in dispute or government-owned.
• Prevents unauthorized claims over public and private properties.

4. Clarification of Muslim Charitable Trusts’ Status

To prevent the wrongful takeover of independent Muslim charitable trusts by Waqf Boards, the bill clarifies that trusts established under separate statutory provisions will not be treated as Waqf properties. This prevents undue interference and ensures that Muslim charitable organizations operate freely.

5. Mandatory Registration of Waqf Properties on the WAMSI Portal

A major administrative issue has been the failure to upload Waqf records on the Waqf Assets Management System of India (WAMSI) portal. The bill makes it compulsory for all Waqf properties to be registered online within six months, ensuring greater transparency and accessibility.

6. Prevention of Wrongful Declaration of Government Properties as Waqf

Several cases, such as the disputed 123 Waqf properties in Delhi and conflicts involving the Surat Municipal Corporation, highlighted the issue of government properties being wrongly classified as Waqf. The amendment:

• Introduces Section 3C, requiring verification by a designated state-appointed officer before government property can be declared as Waqf.
• Ensures that public assets are protected from wrongful appropriation.

7. Transfer of Waqf Surveys to the Collector’s Jurisdiction

To improve efficiency, the amendment shifts the responsibility of pending Waqf property surveys from Waqf Boards to the jurisdiction of the Collector, who will follow state revenue laws for surveys and verification.

8. Strengthening Governance and Accountability of Waqf Boards

State Waqf Boards have long been criticized for corruption, mismanagement, and lack of accountability.

The amendment includes:

• Mandatory monthly meetings for Waqf Boards to ensure regular oversight.
• Requirement for all new Waqf registrations to be verified by the Collector before approval.
• Omission of Section 40, which previously allowed Waqf Boards to declare any property as Waqf without scrutiny.

9. Stricter Disqualification Criteria for Mutawallis (Custodians of Waqf Properties)

To prevent misuse of Waqf assets, individuals involved in malpractices will be disqualified from serving as Mutawallis. This measure ensures that only responsible custodians oversee Waqf properties.

10. Strengthening Legal Mechanisms for Waqf Disputes

The amendment introduces a structured legal framework:

• Appellate Mechanism: Section 83(9) allows for tribunal decisions to be challenged, strengthening judicial remedies.
• Applicability of the Limitation Act: This prevents indefinite litigation, ensuring timely resolution of disputes.
• Removal of Section 108A: This section previously granted Waqf laws overriding authority over other legal provisions. The amendment removes this, ensuring consistency in legal applications.

A Step Towards Transparency and Reform

India’s Waqf Amendment Bill, 2024, brings much-needed reforms aimed at curbing corruption, preventing unauthorized claims, and ensuring better management of Waqf properties. By emphasizing transparency, legal ownership verification, and administrative accountability, the bill seeks to restore the credibility of Waqf Boards while protecting the interests of both the Muslim community and the larger public.

While concerns exist about the bill’s impact, its focus on proper governance and fair property management signals a move towards a more just and transparent system. However, it remains to be seen how effectively the new provisions will be implemented to safeguard Waqf assets for their intended purposes.