The Starlink Conundrum: Diplomacy or Manipulation?

In an intriguing investigation by ProPublica in 2025, a complex tale unfolds involving significant tensions at the intersection of business and international diplomacy. At the heart of this narrative lies the government of The Gambia and its controversial dealings with Starlink, the satellite internet service spearheaded by Elon Musk’s SpaceX. Quite remarkably, the campaign entailed at least seven Gambian ministries embroiled in what could be perceived as veiled threats related to a hefty $25 million infrastructure initiative—should Starlink fail to secure licensing, the project would be sidelined.

Central to this dispute is Communications Minister Lamin Queen Jammeh Jabbi, who found himself in a precarious position as his ministry raised regulatory alarms regarding Starlink’s application. Imagine being in a role where the future of internet connectivity in your country hangs by a thread, dependent not just on local regulations but the machinations of foreign diplomats. It must have been an intense responsibility and a significant juggling act for Jabbi.

Fast forward to February 2025, a pivotal moment occurred when U.S. Ambassador Sharon Cromer met with Jabbi to advocate for Starlink’s approval. Her insistence revolved around an impressive multimillion-dollar U.S.-funded electrical system upgrade that was poised to reshape Gambia’s connectivity landscape. However, as Hassan Jallow, Jabbi’s deputy, recounted in an interview with ProPublica, “The implication was that they were connected. It felt like pressure.” Such statements highlight a nuanced point: where does diplomatic advocacy end, and coercion begin? This question lingers in the air, raising eyebrows and concerns alike.

The Pressure Cooker of Diplomatic Relations

After an unfruitful meeting between Jabbi and Starlink executives in Washington, the stakes escalated. Ambassador Cromer felt compelled to escalate matters directly to President Adama Barrow, urging him to facilitate necessary approvals, thereby allowing Starlink to commence operations. This swift maneuver is telling. Observers note that the campaign may reveal a deeper, unsettling tension in U.S. foreign policy: a striking balance between commercial ambitions and developmental partnerships.

Critics assert that the U.S. State Department’s involvement in this situation crosses ethical boundaries. “If this were done by another country, we absolutely would call this corruption,” remarked Kristofer Harrison, a former State Department official. Kenneth Fairfax, another ex-diplomat, poignantly labeled the effort as “crony capitalism.” It begs the question: at what point do relationships formed in the name of development morph into instruments of political influence?

Starlink’s Rapid Market Expansion

The backdrop of this controversy is Starlink’s astonishing growth trajectory. As of early 2025, the company boasts over 6,750 satellites orbiting the Earth. Its recent launch in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is yet another testament to its expanding influence in Africa, now operating in 21 countries across the continent. This aggressive expansion makes The Gambia a strategic target, a potential gateway for Starlink’s ambitions in West Africa, especially given its underdeveloped broadband infrastructure.

Framed within the larger context of the Digital Transformation with Africa (DTA) initiative, Starlink’s efforts are advanced as part of a noble cause—to improve internet access across the continent. One could argue it’s a genuine effort to democratize access to information and connect the disconnected. However, skepticism persists. Critics assert that the approach in Gambia reflects a more insidious strategy—one that could undermine the sovereignty of smaller nations.

As of mid-May 2025, Starlink remains unlicensed in The Gambia. Local government officials have refrained from indicating when, or even whether, approval will be granted. For now, this episode raises alarm bells. It sparks a significant inquiry into whether diplomacy intended to foster genuine development is being repurposed to serve powerful private interests. What does this mean for U.S. partnerships across Africa, and indeed, for the future of international business dealings?

The stakes are high, and yet the narrative remains unfinished. As we navigate this complex terrain, it becomes increasingly clear that understanding these dynamics is vital for future diplomatic engagements. Will countries hold fast to their sovereignty, or will they be swept into the currents of corporate influence? Only time will tell.