Bottom Line
- The Biden Administration has declared transcending geographic seams to be a national security priority in its strategy toward sub-Saharan Africa
- American think tanks tend not to prioritize the production of research studies and expert commentary that respond to this national security priority
- As evidence, only a single metatag points to a North African or Middle Eastern country in the commentary articles published on an African affairs blog of a major US think tank during the first three years of the Biden Administration
- The transcending of geographic seams requires more than a strategic plan, it requires a long-term collaboration between universities, think tanks, and the federal government
- More should be done to manage the risk of geographic bias in research studies and expert commentary published by American think tanks
In the United States Strategy toward Sub-Saharan Africa , the Biden Administration
declared transcending geographic seams to be a national security priority. However, this declaration does not appear to have spurred systematic changes in the production of research studies and expert commentary on African affairs within the United States think tank community.
An exploration of the metatags used to label commentary articles published on an African affairs blog by a major United States think tank serves as a case in point. During the first three years of the Biden Administration, there were 293 articles that provided general commentary on policy relevant issues published on the Africa in Transition blog of the Council on Foreign Relations. These articles were indexed using 1402 metatags. Remarkably only one of these articles was labeled with a single metatag that points to a North African country. Assuming that these metatags provide a reasonably accurate description of the geographic themes in the underlying content, then the
Africa in Transition blog seems to reinforce the artificial bureaucratic division that has long existed between North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa in the context of United States foreign policy making.
Far from transcending the geographic seams, this publication appears to be rife with geographic bias that can lead to serious misunderstandings about current affairs by its readers, including academics, business leaders, diplomats, politicians, soldiers, and policy wonks. To be clear, we do not expect that this is an isolated case. In our experience, geographic bias is widespread in the research studies and expert opinions produced within the American think tank community since the last US presidential election. Moreover, this geographic bias is not limited to Africa. It is clear that it also exists along other geographic seams, including geographic seams that run between Africa and the Middle East, Central Asia and the Middle East, and South Asia and the Middle East.
If the Biden Administration is serious about making progress on transcending geographic seams, then we argue that the White House should take immediate action to tackle this problem. A successful response likely would require a long-term collaboration between American universities, think tanks, and government agencies. American think tanks need to start producing more knowledge on important geographic seams. But that is unlikely to happen without widespread critical reflection on the root causes of geographic bias in their work. It is also unlikely to happen without a financial nudge from the US government. This could be achieved through more funding requirements for the production of research studies and expert commentary that promote the transcending of geographic seams. It could also benefit from revised approval, monitoring, evaluation, and oversight practices within the United States government and Congress.
The Department of State almost certainly would need to play a central role in affecting these systems-level changes. This could start with a convening of think tanks that receive funding for research studies and expert commentary on US national security and foreign policy issues. That initiative would provide both sides with an opportunity to explore how the American think tank community is approaching geographic seams. It would also provide an opportunity to explore the level of awareness that exists about geographic bias in the research studies and expert commentary produced by American think tanks. Following the convening, the State Department could lead the development of a national action plan for addressing gaps in knowledge about geographic seams in federally funded work by American think tanks. That would provide a much needed pathway for achieving short-term and long-term outcomes that would help policymakers be able to better transcend geographic seams in US national security and foreign policy activities.
Geographic Seams
In the context of American foreign policy, the concept of geographic seams is neither well-defined nor sufficiently researched. At this exploratory stage, a geographic seam might be said to be a location of policy-relevant interaction between two or more regions. Logically, these interactions could occur on land, at sea, or in space. They could also occur at a particular point in time or over a period of time. In other words, geographic seams are context-sensitive phenomena.
As noted, these geographic seams depend on the existence of regions. These regions are essentially social concepts that tend to be brought into existence within social institutions (e.g. foreign services, defense ministries, intergovernmental organizations). They are not ontologically objective phenomena. This becomes immediately evident when one considers Djibouti. In some social institutions, it is
treated as a Middle Eastern and North African country. In others, it is treated as a Sub-Saharan country. In these cases, regions count as institutional facts. What counts as a geographic seam for the State Department does not necessarily count as a geographic seam for the United States Department of Defense. Nor does it necessarily count as a geographic seam within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China.
The Biden Administration has
declared that it is a national security priority for the United States Government to transcend these geographic seams in its national security and foreign policy activities. Moreover, it has placed special emphasis on transcending the geographic seams that exist between the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs and the Bureau of African Affairs. Specifically, the geographic seam that exists between North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa. The United States Strategy toward Sub-Saharan Africa even refers to this location of policy interaction as an “
artificial bureaucratic division.” This makes sense when one considers the Greater Sahel. This subregion clearly straddles the
Line in the Sand that exists between North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa. (Note, it also functions as a
shoreline between Africa and the Middle East. That appears to be overlooked in the national strategy.)
These geographic seams are extremely relevant to US national security and foreign policy interests. To illustrate this point, consider the following examples:
- Chad: S. Ambassador Alexander Laskaris points out that illicit gold trafficking is a cross-regional phenomenon. It starts with artisanal and small-scale gold mining in Chad. However, these producers depend on traffickers in Libya to get the gold to markets in the United Arab Emirates.
- Sudan: Talal Mohammad observes that the Sudanese civil war has become a proxy war involving Middle Eastern and North Africa powers. Prominent examples include Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.
In both cases, one cannot fully understand the policy issue by simply understanding the dynamics at play in Sub-Saharan Africa. One must also understand 1) the dynamics at play in the Middle East and North Africa; 2) the interactions between the dynamics at play in the Middle East, North Africa, and Sub-Saharan Africa.
