The media was taken aback last week by a photograph of a sitting US President Donald Trump with five African heads of state standing around him in an arrangement that seemed to signal disrespect, although this was not an unprecedented gesture on Trump’s part.
During his first term in office (2016-2020), Trump similarly posed in a relaxed manner while hosting the foreign ministers of the Nile Basin countries in Washington. At the time, the image raised less concern, as the individuals concerned were ministers and not heads of state.
It inadvertently evoked an iconic photograph from World War II, in which then US president Franklin Roosevelt, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, and British prime minister Winston Churchill sat as equals, flanked by their ministers and advisers. That photograph came to symbolise a period of fleeting détente before the onset of the Cold War.
Trump was also earlier photographed seated while former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Japan’s then prime minister, and other leaders of the world’s industrialised nations stood around him in mid-discussion.
However, what truly drew criticism this time around was Trump’s demeanour during a televised session with the African leaders. When Mauritanian President Mohamed Ould Ghazouani spoke for over seven minutes outlining his country’s strengths, Trump grew visibly impatient.
“Maybe we’re gonna have to go a bit quicker than this, because we have a whole schedule,” he said. He then asked each president to state their name and country and to do so in as few words as possible. “If I could just ask your name, and your country, that would be great,” he added.
When Liberian President Joseph Boakai spoke, Trump interjected that the Liberian president spoke “beautiful English,” asking where he learned it from.
The question laid bare Trump’s unfamiliarity with his own country’s historical ties, as Liberia is a nation that was founded by freed African-American slaves repatriated by the US. Thousands were resettled and established Liberia, naming its capital Monrovia in honour of then US president James Monroe.
Liberia, which celebrated its bicentennial only a few years ago, owes its very existence to the US, from its flag and its capital to its ruling elite. Yet, none of this appeared to register with billionaire businessman President Trump.
He is guided neither by ideology nor by historical alliances but instead by what he stands to gain or lose from any given relationship. He is neither an enemy nor an ally on principle — not even to traditional partners such as the Europeans.
This is not the first time that Trump has exhibited such dismissive behaviour towards visiting heads of state. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was on the receiving end of what many observers deemed a public humiliation when Trump confronted him in the Oval Office before the cameras earlier this year.
Even the US Vice-President entered the fray, criticising Zelensky and accusing him of ingratitude towards a president who, by their account, had provided substantial support to Ukraine.
In the same meeting, Trump demanded that Zelensky relinquish Ukrainian territory captured by Russian forces and sign an agreement ceding half of Ukraine’s rare earth resources to the US in exchange for aid.
A similar pattern emerged with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa. During a White House meeting, a dispute erupted over South Africa’s proposed legislation to expropriate unused agricultural land, regardless of ownership. Trump denounced the initiative as racist against the white population and even suggested that Afrikaners, the descendants of European settlers, should be offered asylum in the US.
Trump’s attitude and remarks render dialogue on many international crises even more difficult, over and above the existing political complications. His approach makes it more difficult to reach a truce in Gaza, impedes Iran’s acceptance of new realities in the Middle East, delays progress between India and Pakistan, and intensifies tensions with China and about Ukraine.
While these issues are intrinsically complex, Trump’s demeanour adds a layer of friction that renders resolution even more elusive.
The issue with Trump is not that he is more pragmatic than his predecessors, but rather that he is the most blunt of all of them. Many American presidents have waged wars in Asia, South America, the Caribbean, Africa, or the Middle East. The US, far from being a peaceful actor, has often shaped its global presence through military intervention rather than diplomacy.
Trump authorised airstrikes on Iran in support of Israel last month, and he has put forward proposals widely viewed as unjust to the Palestinians ranging from the “Deal of the Century” during his first term to calls for the displacement of Gaza’s population to facilitate US and Israeli control over the territory.
He has openly suggested abandoning Ukraine, imposed tariffs on imports from China and numerous other countries, and announced aspirations to annex Canada, Greenland (Danish territory), and the Panama Canal.
Trump is the first US president to publicly declare that America’s allies in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East must pay for the privilege of US protection. While previous presidents may have expressed similar sentiments behind closed doors, Trump has made such demands openly.
Washington’s requests could have earlier been met with partial or negotiated compliance. Today, however, they are accompanied by public pressure and, in many cases, the deliberate humiliation or embarrassment of world leaders.
The likely outcome is that most countries, lacking viable alternatives to US support, will acquiesce to Trump’s demands and will implement the directives, at least in broad outline, imposed by Washington.
Only a small minority, with limited but tangible strategic alternatives, may find room to push back against the overwhelming weight of US power.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 17 July, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: