Michael Walsh, MPH

Alaska Beacon — The U.S. Government does not have a good grasp on the federally-funded research needs for advancing U.S. national interests in the Arctic. That became clear to me when the U.S. Arctic Research Commission (USARC) recently published a new report that was intended to articulate those needs. In seeking alignment with the America First Agenda of the Trump Administration, USARC chose the wrong concept for our national interests. Perhaps inadvertently, USARC reduced our national interests to nothing more than our national safety and security interests. That is clear when one considers the terminology used throughout the report. Every priority area that USARC selected for Arctic research ends with the word “security” (e.g., military security). The Congressional committees of jurisdiction should resolutely reject the USARC findings in the months ahead. Otherwise, the U.S. Government will run the risk of prioritizing a set of research needs that do not fully advance the national interests of the Arctic, Alaskans and the American people.

High North News — The Trump Administration is in the process of securitizing Arctic affairs. "That will almost certainly have a significant impact on the future of U.S. federally funded research related to the Arctic", says Michael Walsh, researcher at the University of the Witwatersrand.

Curaçao Chronicle — On 21 January 2025, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio promised that the U.S. Department of State would execute "better and faster and more effectively than any other agency in our government." As famously noted by former U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, the problem is that it is difficult to "make transformative change in an institution of [its] size and complexity." Under Rubio's watch, it is therefore not surprising that the U.S. Department of State has failed to fulfill its obligation to correct any and all information that is non-compliant with the U.S. Department of State Information Quality Guidelines.

Foreign Policy Research Institute — On the eve of the recent visit of coastal West African leaders to the White House, it was announced that a letter of intent had been signed between Guma Africa Group and the Government of Liberia to develop the Liberty Corridor. The details of that agreement remain confidential. However, important questions still need to be asked about what role the US Government played in the negotiations. Those questions will force consideration of favoritism in US commercial diplomacy. They will also demand evaluations of the conduct of US ambassadors, a senior advisor to the American President, and a reported candidate for US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs. That is because there are concerns that the US Government has endorsed a commercial project that will benefit Chinese and South African individuals and entities who undermine US national security and foreign policy interests, as outlined in the America First Foreign Policy Agenda endorsed by the Trump Administration. For these reasons, the US Congress should seek to address the numerous questions being raised about the US Government taking sides in this commercial dispute.

Mail & Guardian — A few months ago, the chairman of the Africa and Global Health Policy Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Ted Cruz, hosted a roundtable discussion that tackled energy and critical mineral partnerships with the ambassadors and representatives of 19 African countries and the AU. Those African countries included Gabon, Mauritania and Senegal.

Foreign Policy Research Institute — Less than six months into his current term in office, President Donald Trump has already imposed visa and travel restrictions on nationals from eleven countries in North and Sub-Saharan Africa traveling to the United States. In official statements, the Trump Administration has made several arguments for why such country-specific visa and travel restrictions are necessary. On national security grounds, the administration maintains that some countries are failed states, state sponsors of terrorism, and/or have a significant terrorist presence. On other grounds, the administration states that some countries have untrustworthy screening and vetting processes, authorities or governments that refuse or significantly delay accepting the return of their nationals eligible for deportation, and/or nationals who have high overstay rates. The US Congress may want to examine a couple of important things about the recent visa and travel restrictions on African countries. First, it might wish to examine whether the administration has used the correct criteria for imposing visa and travel restrictions on foreign nationals. Second, it might want to examine whether the administration has selected African countries that best match those criteria. In the long run, the US Congress may wish to do more. For example, it may want to consider limiting the broad discretion that the executive branch currently has for imposing visa and travel restrictions. That could be achieved through the creation of a unified statutory framework for visa and travel restrictions.

Foreign Policy Research Institute — The bilateral relationship between Spain and the United States appears to be approaching a strategic crossroads. Since the September 11th attacks, both governments have often had to muddle through their political divergences to sustain strategic cooperation. This has taken a toll on the bilateral relationship. In Spain, there is ongoing discussion about the value of strong alignment with US national security and foreign policy interests. In addition, the public’s perception of the United States has historically shown a slight majority of Spaniards supporting the alliance with the United States, but with a clear partisan divide along the left-right ideological line. With President Donald Trump in power, perceptions have shifted toward greater criticism, viewing Trump’s re-election as a “bad thing” for the country and with the United States increasingly seen not as a like-minded ally sharing common values and interests, but rather as a necessary strategic partner with whom cooperation is essential.

Foreign Policy Research Institute — In April 2025, legal scholars raised concerns about the ongoing Iran-related terrorism cases against the MTN Group in the US court system. Professor Jeffrey Breinholt of George Washington University even went so far as to express his belief that MTN Group may have committed securities fraud. A few weeks ago, MTN Group experienced another unwelcome development. After more than a decade in the South African courts, the South African Supreme Court of Appeal ruled that South African courts have jurisdiction to hear a separate Iran-linked bribery case brought against MTN Group. Its legal woes mounting, legal scholars are now saying that multinational companies should do more to notify their own shareholders of the risks of their own business partnerships with the MTN Group. That includes US financial services companies (e.g., BNY Mellon; Mastercard), professional services companies (e.g., Accenture; Covington & Burling; Deloitte), and technology companies (e.g., Apple; Meta; Microsoft).

Mail & Guardian — On 29 April 2025, a South African newspaper published an article by Witney Schneidman in defence of Mcebisi Jonas, the chairperson of MTN Group and recently appointed South African special envoy to the US. At the time of publication, the byline read, “Schneidman is a former US deputy assistant secretary of state for African affairs.” After the article was published, The Press Council of South Africa was notified of the apparent failure of Schneidman to disclose a serious conflict of interest related to the article. Following that notification, the newspaper corrected the byline with the addition of, “and chaired Covington & Burling’s Africa practice”.

Mail & Guardian — On Wednesday, Judd Devermont published a personal reflection on the significant challenges in strategic planning on national security and foreign policy in the United States government. The essay presents his analytic judgments about what has gone wrong with formulating and implementing these kinds of strategic plans. Some serve as brutally honest indictments of the current state of national security and foreign policy planning in the US government. For example, Devermont observes that the US policymakers often do not know what they want out of their own strategies and strategic plans.

Mail & Guardian — Earlier this month, President Cyril Ramaphosa announced the appointment of Mcebisi Jonas as special envoy to the US, with the caveat that Jonas would retain his role as the MTN board chairperson alongside his new duties.

businessreport.co.za — MTN Group's recent Annual Financial Statements have raised concerns about potential misrepresentation regarding ongoing terrorism litigation in the US, with implications for shareholder value and legal accountability.

Sunday Times — Will Emmerson Mnangagwa's move open the door to a future reset of US-Zimbabwe relations?

Mail & Guardian — At the end of the first term, the Trump administration unexpectedly dropped that status function when it recognised the sovereignty of Morocco over the entirety of Western Sahara. But the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic continues to maintain diplomatic relations with other independent states, and the United Nations continues to regard Western Sahara as a non-self-governing territory.

Business Report — Earlier this month, US Congressman Ronny Jackson introduced a bill that would not only demand a full review of the bilateral relationship between the United States and South Africa. It would require the US government to identify South African government officials and ANC leaders who are eligible for the imposition of economic sanctions.

CapeTalk — Lester Kiewit speaks to Michael Walsh, the Non-Resident Senior Fellow in the Africa Program at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, about the latest development in already-frosty diplomacy between South Africa and the U.S. Trump has now said he will not attend the G20 meeting in South Africa because of this country’s land policies and what he called the killing of white farmers.

Small Wars Journal — Media reporting suggests that there has been an increase in the risks facing U.S. diplomatic missions and their staff worldwide. That reality poses a serious challenge to the Trump Administration and its legacy. The America First Agenda (AFA) demands that U.S. foreign policy advances the prosperity, safety, and security of the American people. Logically, one would expect that includes U.S. diplomats and their dependents. However, there appear to be gaps in the global posture of the specialized tactical units that would need to respond in the event of a serious attack on U.S. diplomats and their dependents. That includes the Fleet Anti-Terrorism Security Team (FAST) Companies of the United States Marine Corps (Marine Corps). There are concerns that those gaps could make it difficult for the U.S. Department of Defense (Department of Defense) to be able to rapidly deploy FAST teams (Figure 1) to respond to urgent threats against U.S. diplomatic missions and their staff in particular regions of the world. To mitigate against the risk of another Benghazi, the Marine Corps and Department of Defense should make it a priority to re-evaluate and realign the FAST Companies and other specialized tactical units responsible for overseas crisis response. To ensure that happens, the Trump Administration should immediately direct the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to re-evaluate and realign the global posture of the FAST Companies and the other specialized tactical units responsible for overseas crisis response with the America First Foreign Policy Agenda (AFA/FP).

Mail & Guardian — Over the past few years, Western governments have demonstrated a willingness to impose Swift bans on the banks of states that severely violate international norms. These are extremely coercive measures since Swift is the secure financial messaging network that international banks rely on to facilitate cross-border transfers. Although workarounds have been attempted, prior Swift bans have severely affected the ability of banks in targeted independent states from accessing international markets.

The Foreign Service Journal — Today’s youth must navigate an increasingly complex religious landscape. Our experiences with religion are being influenced by the breakdown of traditional religious institutions, the impact of social media on religious practices, and the deterioration of the current world order. To achieve prosperity and security for Americans, the new administration will therefore need to take a hard look at the preexisting whole-of-government and agency-specific strategies, policies, and procedures for promoting religious freedom, openness, and tolerance among the world’s youth. Otherwise, American diplomats will struggle to make strategic choices that advance our national interests among the world’s youth. More than a decade ago, the Obama administration released the National Strategy on Integrating Religious Leader and Faith Community Engagement into U.S. Foreign Policy, but it was a missed opportunity because it failed to include an explicit reference to youth in its strategic objectives.

The Copenhagen Post — The Trump Administration is pursuing highly controversial strategic goals that are intended to permanently reshape bilateral relations with the Kingdom of Denmark. It is therefore remarkable that the Trump Administration failed to comprehensively re-evaluate and realign the relevant business operations of the U.S. Department of State before launching foreign policy torpedoes in the direction of the strategic alliance between the Kingdom of Denmark and the United States. The Trump Administration did not even take a moment to rename the U.S. Consulate in Nuuk to the U.S. Consulate in Greenland in order to promote naming consistency with the U.S. Consulate General in Curaçao – another overseas country and territory of a NATO Ally. If the Trump Administration is serious about achieving its desired outcomes in Greenland, then it needs to ensure that it has the right overseas diplomatic posture in Denmark, Greenland, and the Faroe Islands. From a management perspective, the Executive Office of the President should therefore direct the U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio to take the following actions.

Mail & Guardian — The Trump administration is committed to restoring meritocracy and promoting individuality in the international system. Those principle-based strategic goals pose a serious risk to the future involvement of the government of South Africa in the G20. Among other things, one could imagine the Trump administration taking future actions that would affect the termination of the G20 membership of South Africa and the African Union. Given the scale of the consequences, commentators should give more consideration to this low probability, high impact event in the run-up to the G20 Johannesburg Summit.

Mail & Guardian — Earlier this week, the Federal Maritime Commission launched an examination to identify any regulations, policies, or practices by other parties that create unfavourable shipping conditions in several choke points around the world. One of those choke points is the Strait of Gibraltar. That carries significant risks for the future of US-Spain relations.

High North News — prior column , I argued that Secretary of State Marco Rubio should consider directing U.S. Consul Monica Bland to produce an Integrated Country Strategy for Greenland . Admittedly, there is a potential problem with that proposal.

The Copenhagen Post — Secretary of State Marco Rubio should conduct the following real-world experiment. He should direct the Charge d’Affaires, a.i. at the U.S. Embassy to the Kingdom of Denmark, Jennifer Hall Godfrey, to take a radically different approach to strategic planning. Instead of a single mission strategic plan, he should order her to produce a multi-level set of strategic plans. Instead of taking a top-down approach, he should order her to take a bottom-up one. Should this experiment prove successful, then Secretary Rubio can order other U.S. diplomatic mission to independent states with overseas countries and territories to take the same course of action. Should those tests produce similar results, then Secretary Rubio will have discovered a new way to improve mission strategic planning for independent states with overseas countries and territories.