Although the foreign policy of all American presidents has focused on confirming and maintaining America as the super economic, political and military power, there seems to exist a clear-cut difference in the management of international issues, whether the ruling party is Democratic or the Republicans. If it seems to the American successive leaders that “keeping the union, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense,…”1 depends on the amount of strengths they show to the rest of the world; it is also apparent that from the Democrats ruling of the USA to the Republicans’, there is an impression that the entire world has moved from peace to unrest, with war scenes here and there in the world, promoted or supported the US Republican administration, on the premise of fighting terrorists abroad, promoting democracy or exercising their rights of humanitarian assistance. A basis of such comparison of the foreign policy of Democrats and Republicans could be the four last presidential terms, with Clinton and Obama’s presidency marked with almost no apparent international conflicts including America, and Bush and Trump’s presidencies marked successively with the US-Iraq war, the war in Syria and the crisis with Iran, to mention a little. The present paper aims at highlighting the differences in the international relations between the Democrats and the Republicans ruling of America in general, and the specific interest the two parties have had for Africa. The methodology used is based on documentation and critical analysis, and the literary theory applied is the New Historicist Criticism.