On January 27, 2017, President Trump’s administration issued Executive Order 13769, formally known as “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States”; this order is also informally known as either the “Muslim ban” or the “travel ban.” It prevented all immigration and most travel from the Middle Eastern and African countries of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. Despite mass protests and legal challenges, the order was legally upheld by a 5-4 Supreme Court decision in Trump v. Hawaii. On January 31, 2020, nearly three years later, the Trump administration expanded the list of countries to include Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Myanmar, Nigeria, Sudan, and Tanzania. The amended order was implemented on February 21, 2020.
While the impact of the travel ban will inevitably differ widely from state to state, there is no serious universal rationale for implementing these policies. The stated reason by the Trump administration for the order’s expansion is that the countries listed have “displayed an ‘unwillingness or inability’ to adhere to ‘baseline’ security criteria,” specifically citing “insufficient information sharing from the countries’ governments about criminal and terrorism data, a lack of electronic passport systems and issues with Interpol reporting methods.” Even if this is true, the Trump administration hasn’t explained why these travel restrictions were not implemented sooner, or why similar violating countries haven’t also been hit with a travel ban. The reasoning behind the expansions is flawed at best and points to an ulterior motive at worse. Whatever the cause, by adding more banned countries to the list, President Trump disrupts vital refugee flows from Eritrea and Tanzania, angers important allies in Nigeria and Tanzania, and disrupts peace processes in Eritrea and Ethiopia.
Eritrea
Eritrea is a small nation located in the Horn of Africa, bordering the Red Sea, Sudan, Ethiopia, and Djibouti. Economically underdeveloped and politically repressed, it has been under the authoritarian rule of strongman Isaias Afwerki since independence. In August 2018, Ethiopia and Eritrea signed a peace agreement that resolved several land disputes between the two countries and brought the “frozen conflict” between the two nations to an end. Ethiopian president Abiy Ahmed's role in resolving the conflict earned him the 2019 Nobel Peace Prize.
Unfortunately, the peace deal has stalled. Major joint economic deals that were in the treaty have failed to materialize, as have attempts to move troops away from the border. The U.S. has significant political capital in the region and could have played an important role in ensuring the peace deal functions as planned, preventing a resurgence in conflict. Nevertheless, by accusing the Eritrean government of being unable to maintain even basic security concerns, the U.S. is burning a major bridge with the power-hungry Afwerki. Eritrean Foreign Minister Osman Saleh Mohammed has directly stated that “the government saw the ban as a political move that would hurt the country's relations with the US.” This reduces the U.S.’s ability to assist in the peace process and severely hampers its traditionally “outsized role in the region” and the peace process. Damaging the peace process is especially ironic as most of the refugees that the travel ban is trying to stop are fleeing because of the conflict and conscription efforts that have been implemented as a result of the conflict. In addition, the regional economic growth, increased U.S. influence in the region, and increased regional stability makes peace the desired outcome for the U.S. regardless of the refugee situation.
Nigeria
In contrast to Eritrea, Nigeria is one of the giants of Africa. As Africa’s most populous country and its single largest economy, Nigeria has been a major political force since it gained independence from Britain in 1960. Imposing a travel restriction on Nigeria harms a major strategic relationship and major U.S. economic partner.
The United States and Nigeria have been close military and political partners since the early 2010s when Nigeria’s northern regions were besieged by a violent insurgency from the Islamist group Boko Haram. Boko Haram, which swore allegiance to the Islamic State in 2015, killed tens of thousands of Nigerian civilians and forced 2.3 million Nigerians from their homes. While the threat from Boko Haram and affiliated extremist groups has subsided since 2015, the threat has not been eliminated. Since Boko Haram killed at least 30 civilians in February 2020, U.S. military and political assistance remain crucial to ensure the group can’t regain the power it had in 2015. The U.S. has been extremely crucial in the fight against Boko Haram, deploying many trainers and advisors to support Nigerian troops in the field, as well as supplying the Nigerians with the military equipment they need to maintain their counterinsurgency effort.
U.S. assistance is jeopardized by the travel ban. Nigerian foreign minister Geoffrey Onyeama was “blindsided” by the decision, indicating a negative reaction from the Nigerian government. Any decreased trust between the two governments could lead to decreased cooperation on vitally important security matters.
In addition, these travel restrictions harm the U.S. and Nigerian economies. Both countries are among the world's largest economies and have a strong trading relationship. The travel ban jeopardizes the economic relationships between American and Nigerian companies, as face-to face-meetings and conferences become harder to organize due to decreased “access to business and visitor visas and diversity visa lottery eligibility.” This damage to economic relations couldn’t come at a worse time. The African Union is planning to implement the Africa Continental Free Trade Area in July 2020, one of the largest free trade zones in the world. These restrictions, which function as de-facto economic sanctions, could disrupt American access to the overall African market.
The travel ban also deprives the U.S. of an incredibly economically beneficial source of manpower, as NPR explains “first- and second-generation Nigerians are typically more educated and more likely to hold professional jobs than the general U.S. population.”
Tanzania
Tanzania is a large nation in eastern Africa and can be defined as an anocratic state that has experienced a backslide into autocracy in recent years under President John Magufuli. This includes increased arrests on false charges, abductions, or extrajudicial violence. The government has also increasingly cracked down on the LGBT population, and homosexuality is punishable by a prison sentence of 30 years to life. The travel ban could prevent people fleeing from finding refuge in the United States. If no other options exist, these people will be forced to stay in Tanzania.
Despite its domestic policies, Tanzania is an important U.S. counterterrorism partner. Ever since Al-Qaeda carried out a 1998 bombing of the U.S. embassy in Dar es Salaam, the U.S. has provided military supplies and training that has ensured that terrorism in Tanzania remains a much smaller threat compared to its neighbors Kenya, Uganda, and Somalia. In addition, U.S. training has helped turn the Tanzanian military into a peacekeeping force that has deployed on several major UN peacekeeping missions in recent years. The travel ban has the potential to jeopardize an incredibly successful security relationship between the United States and Tanzania.
Sudan
Finally, Sudan is a large and populous nation in Northern Africa that recently split into Sudan and South Sudan in 2011 following a long and brutal civil war. The nation had been ruled by dictator Omar Bashir from 1989 until 2019 when mass protests and pressure from the military forced him to resign. Sudan is currently ruled by a power-sharing accord between the protest movement and the military, with the overall head of the government falling to military leader and possible war criminal Lieutenant-General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan.
Sudan was on the first draft of the travel ban back in 2017 but was later removed after diplomatic pressure from the United Arab Emirates, who was receiving Sudanese military aid. Sudan’s inclusion in the updated travel ban only serves to further destabilize a nation that is teetering on the edge between dictatorship and democracy. The ban has sparked feelings of disappointment towards the U.S. from many young Sudanese people who are at the forefront of Sudan's revolution. By failing to signal the U.S.’s full support for the Sudanese people and their freedom of movement, the U.S. increases the possibility that the spark of democracy in one of the world's most historically oppressed countries fails to light.
In summary, the travel ban expansion is a strategic miscalculation for U.S. interests and relationships in Africa. It weakens the U.S.’s ability to fight ISIS affiliates in Nigeria and harms the U.S.’s friendship with Tanzania. It weakens an already strained peace deal in Eritrea and ensures that Eritrean and Tanzanian refugees can’t find refuge in the United States. It even hurts the economy by harming U.S. ties with the massive Nigerian economy.