The Shield of the Americas is one of the clearest examples of this approach. Launched at a Trump administration summit in Miami in March 2026, the Shield brings together governments to cooperate against drug cartels, trafficking, organized crime, and other security threats.
On the surface, it is a regional security initiative. But its larger meaning is geopolitical. It reflects Washington’s desire to work directly with governments willing to cooperate with the United States. Since returning to the White House, Trump has overtly influenced the outcome of several South American elections, such as Argentina’s president, Javier Milei.
Having leaders who are beholden to the Trump administration, wherever possible, seems to be the current plan of action. That strategy may produce quicker results. Smaller groups can make decisions faster and coordinate resources without waiting for broad international consensus like United Nations approval. It also raises questions about where the United States sees the future of global diplomacy heading.
If countries increasingly organize themselves into smaller political and security alliances, what happens to the broader international system? Up till now, diplomatic respect and sovereignty have caused Brazil, Mexico, and Cuba to decline joining the Shield alliance. That matters because regional security cannot be separated from questions of sovereignty, migration, economic development, and the growing influence of countries such as China.
Sovereignty is particularly important for Africa. At the United Nations, African governments have long demanded permanent representation on the UN Security Council. Through the African Union’s Ezulwini Consensus, they seek at least two permanent African seats and five additional non-permanent seats.
That demand becomes even more important as the international system changes. The need is clear: Africa should have a greater role in deciding how those problems are solved. This is part of Africa’s message to Washington and the rest of the world, but are the five permanent members of the Security Council listening?
Most African nations desire stronger relationships with the United States. They do not want to be “whitelisted” and made a pariah in Western-controlled financial institutions. They want American investment, trade, technology, and access to U.S. markets. Over thirty African nations recently saw the U.S. Congress pass the African Growth and Opportunity Act, extending it for another two years.
Countries not included in AGOA, such as Burkina Faso and Zimbabwe, are forging more independent and self-reliant development models. Africa needs investment. It needs roads, railways, electricity, telecommunications, manufacturing and technology.
African observers believe the centrally located Democratic Republic of Congo is key for continental African development. Last December, Trump brought Congolese President Félix Tshisekedi and Rwandan President Paul Kagame to Washington to sign the so-called Washington Accords.
Trump claimed the accord was one of seven wars he has ended while demanding the Nobel Peace Prize. The accord opened the door to expanded American investment in Congo’s enormous reserves of copper, cobalt, lithium, gold and other strategic minerals.
Righteous African heads of state must ensure that “investment” is not “exploitation”. For Washington, gaining a stronger position in Congo’s critical-minerals sector is strategically important. For Congo, American investment could bring infrastructure, jobs, technology and greater access to international markets. Rwanda, long considered in sync with Western interests, is currently upset with developments since last December.
Fighting has continued in eastern Congo, particularly involving the M23 movement, which the United States has accused Rwanda of supporting. Rwanda denies supporting the group. In March 2026, Washington sanctioned Rwanda’s military and senior officials. African governments are watching developments very carefully. The DRC borders nine other African nations.
The geographic area covered by The Shield of the Americas and the Congo-Rwanda agreement is thousands of miles apart, but they are connected by a larger question: as the world’s hegemon, can the United States build effective partnerships with other nations? If the United States wants to build a lasting relationship with Africa, the Americas and the rest of the world, then Washington will have to recognize that governments are developing more options.
The emerging international order is changing. Nations can engage with the United States, China, Russia, India, Europe, the Gulf states, and one another. The United States is experimenting with smaller alliances and direct deals. Can American policy lead to a better quality of life for all? Going forward, globally, will the United Nations stay relevant? Locally, can we keep the headquarters in NYC?