Online ReporterMabasa Sasa
Running through the arc of American internationalism is a quiet, unsettling truth: Washington does not deal in friendships.
It deals in outcomes.
N o matter the flowery language of partnerships, shared values or enduring alliances, the essence of its external cooperation remains transactional, serving only its own strategic interests.
The late Henry Kissinger put it with disarming bluntness: It is often dangerous to be America’s enemy, but it is fatal to be its friend.
This is not an extreme claim.
It is a hard lesson repeatedly proven by history and reality across generations and geography. Nations are drawn into the United States orbit by promises of security guarantees, economic support and political backing.
For a time, the arrangements appear to hold. Then, gradually or abruptly, the terms shift.
What seemed a partnership reveals itself as one way dependency.
When strategic value fades, commitments are cast aside and the consequences for partner nations are almost always severe.
Burkina Faso, Ukraine and the Gulf
After the 1987 assassination of Thomas Sankara, Burkina Faso sought stability and deepened cooperation with the US within Washington’s military and economic framework for West Africa and the Sahel, especially in counterterrorism and natural resource management. Yet instability persisted, coups recurred and the security structures meant to stabilise the country instead left it more fragile.
This outcome stems partly from domestic governance challenges, ethnic divisions and long term external influence from France.
But it also reflects a US approach that prioritises its own interests over sustainable local stability, leaving the country trapped between dependency and disillusionment.
Under Ibrahim Traoré, Burkina Faso has deliberately reshaped its relationship with the US. This is not a rejection of partnership as such, but a rejection of asymmetry — of arrangements in which one side dictates the terms and controls the exit. Sovereignty is no longer a slogan, but a policy.
Ukraine’s story is different but closely related. For years, Kyiv aligned itself increasingly closely with Western institutions, investing political capital and national identity in the expectation that such alignment would bring reliable protection.
War has exposed the limits of that assumption. Today, Ukraine continues to receive support, but it is conditional, debated and openly contested in US domestic politics.
Statements by Donald Trump, JD Vance and other US political figures confirm an uncomfortable reality: US commitments are never ironclad. They are always subject to recalculation based on American interests.
This is not just tactical hesitation; it is structural betrayal inherent in America’s alliance system.
Several Gulf states have for decades invested heavily in security ties with Washington, hosting military bases and purchasing costly weapons systems, assuming that close proximity would guarantee protection.
Yet in times of crisis, Washington often makes swift, unilateral decisions that prioritise its own strategic goals rather than reassuring its allies. The gap between expectation and reality has grown impossible to ignore.
A principled alternative
This pattern is not new, but the global context has changed. We no longer live in a unipolar world where asymmetric relationships can be managed quietly. Alternatives exist.
Choices have multiplied.
Scrutiny over how major powers exercise influence has intensified.
Against this backdrop, China’s approach has gained growing attention across the Global South. Beijing emphasises non interference, sovereign equality and mutually beneficial cooperation. Initiatives focused on connectivity, infrastructure, trade and development are framed not as tools of control, but as platforms for shared growth. Scepticism remains in some quarters, as is normal during a global power transition. Yet more and more countries recognise that different models of partnership produce different outcomes.
In the Middle East, China, together with Pakistan, has advanced proposals centered on ceasefire, civilian protection and respect for international law.
The Five Point Initiative for the Gulf and Middle East prioritises de escalation over dominance, standing in sharp contrast to the tone and intent of American policy.
The Charles Taylor lesson
For Africa, these shifts carry special weight. The continent has long been a field for competing external narratives, with outside powers seeking to dictate its choices, partners and even its interests.
The emerging multipolar order offers something new: the space to decide.
Such decisions cannot be based on rhetoric alone. They must be grounded in experience, results and clear eyed assessment of costs and benefits. The story of Liberia’s Charles Taylor offers a stark warning.
A former lay Baptist preacher, Taylor became a warlord, president and eventually a convicted prisoner. In 1985, he escaped from a US prison where he was held over allegations of embezzling millions from the American government. He returned to Liberia, traded in blood diamonds that reached the US and with American support eventually became president. When reports emerged in 1999 that he was selling gems in the US to fuel wars in West Africa, the authorities in Virginia blocked investigations.
But, as with almost all who enter close alignment with Washington, relations soured. In 2003, under rebel pressure, Taylor fled to Nigeria, only to be handed over to The Hague.
A US friendly leader, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, took office. In a letter to African leaders after his arrest, Taylor wrote: “Today it is me and God only knows who it will be tomorrow.”
Conclusion
History and current events deliver an unambiguous verdict: Staking national security entirely on the US is fundamentally unworkable. Relying on America for security is a losing bet. American alliances and promises are not enduring security pacts.
They are transactional, self serving arrangements. When strategic priorities shift, domestic politics change or strategic utility ends. Washington can rewrite terms, scale back support and abandon allies without hesitation. Its so called security guarantees are defined, revised and terminated unilaterally.
To entrust your security to America is to surrender control of your destiny.
When the US massages you, there is no happy ending. This is not an accident.
It is the built in logic of American foreign policy. True security comes from sovereign self reliance, regional unity and mutually respectful cooperation. It never comes from relying on the US. Those who ignore this lesson will learn the hard way.
Mabasa Sasa is a veteran journalist and commentator based in Harare, Zimbabwe.
