About three decades after the end of the Cold War, the world is experiencing a profound structural transformation of its global order. At the heart of this evolution is a challenge to the hegemony of the Western countries. This challenge is mainly driven by two emerging powers dissatisfied with the excesses and dominant influence of most Western powers on the international scene. As one could expect, the African continent is an obvious contender for attracting major powers as part of this realignment.
So, imagine a game of geopolitical chess where the pieces are neither kings nor knights but ports, roads, minerals and promises of investment. The chessboard? Africa. The players? China and the United States are two economic giants advancing their pawns with very different strategies. This is how Africa, traditionally courted by the great powers, now finds itself again at the heart of a major geopolitical rivalry. On the one hand, China is positioning itself as an inexhaustible investor, with gigantic infrastructure projects as part of the “Belt and Road Initiative.” On the other hand, the U.S., although delayed, is trying to react with more strategic investments, such as supporting the local processing of African minerals.
Nonetheless, the impact of these investments remains to be nuanced. Although China is distinguished by its pragmatic approach to infrastructure, the U.S. appears to be having trouble asserting its presence in the face of the extent of Chinese influence, particularly in Central Africa. Its strategy, more oriented toward supporting private companies and joint ventures, seems to struggle to compete with the large-scale projects financed by Beijing. The factors contributing to Washington’s accumulation of delays, far from being in terms of infrastructure, is also a matter of vision, a lack of long-term vision, which Africans frequently view as opportunistic and detached from local realities.
Yet, notwithstanding whatever approach China or the U.S. adopts, an almost appealing question remains: Where does Africa really stand in this game of rivalries? And above all, what can it gain from it?
Strategies, outcomes
It has been almost two decades since China became omnipresent in Africa. The least that could be said is that its Belt and Road Initiative has changed the continent’s economic landscape with gigantic infrastructural investments. Beijing has transformed the continent into a massive construction site through roads, bridges, railways, ports, etc. And the interesting thing is it’s not merely for show, either. Behind every project, there is a clear strategy: to open up export routes, secure access to natural resources and strengthen its influence. Let’s consider the Mombasa-Nairobi railway in Kenya. Built by Chinese companies and financed by Chinese loans, the line, although representing a symbol of Beijing’s commitment, also perfectly illustrates the limits of its strategy: crushing debts for partner countries and increased dependence on China.
So, while China dug, built and signed deals, what was the U.S. doing? Well, it was resting on its glories. For years, Washington saw Africa as a secondary priority, giving China a considerable lead. But recently, America has begun to wake up. Joe Biden’s visit to Angola in December 2024 and announcements of increased investment in battery value chains in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Zambia all show a belated but necessary awareness.
However, the American strategy lacks panache. Unlike China, which plays the card of visible projects, the U.S. prefers more discreet investments, often via the private sector. For instance, the building of a nickel processing plant in Tanzania is a promising project, but it is far from matching the scale of China’s already well-established projects. Although this must be an ambitious project, it doesn’t have the same allure as a brand-new port or a cross-border railway. Moreover, the American approach is often perceived as defensive and opportunistic. Instead of offering a clear, long-term vision, it seems to be primarily concerned with countering China. This posture reinforces the idea that the U.S. is only interested in Africa when it sees it as a strategic threat.
China scores more points
China’s capacity to accommodate African nations’ demands without enforcing a blatantly political agenda is one of its advantages. By all means, Beijing stays out of discussions on democracy and human rights while concentrating only on economic results. Many leaders find this practical approach appealing, especially in regions like Central and East Africa, where political stability is frequently precarious.
In contrast, the U.S., like most Western partners, tends to insist on sensitive issues like political and economic conditions, which complicate its relations with many countries. Such requests are frequently viewed by African nations as interfering with or undermining their sovereignty. For instance, where the U.S. offers promises of “good governance” and workshops on democracy, China builds roads. Where Washington conditions its aid on political and social criteria, Beijing focuses on the essential: delivering what is promised and quickly.
In clear, China seduces because it speaks a simple language: that of tangible results. Yet, this pragmatism comes at a cost. The famous “debt diplomacy” worries many African countries. Infrastructure financed by Chinese loans sometimes becomes a trap, where the inability to repay leads to a loss of sovereignty. As a matter of fact, rumors about the possible seizure of ports or airports fuel the debates.
Chance to reinvention
So, is the U.S. out of the game? The rivalry with China offers a unique opportunity for the U.S. to rethink its approach to Africa. Rather than focusing solely on competing with Beijing, the Americans could position themselves as long-term partners, emphasizing projects that meet the real needs of populations. A key area could be the local transformation of resources. For example, instead of extracting minerals to export them, why not invest in local factories that create value on the spot? This would generate jobs, strengthen local economies and offer an alternative to China’s approach, which is often focused on raw exports.
The recent developments, particularly President Donald Trump’s inauguration, could play in favor of this, as the new Trump policies in Africa could trigger tensions between superpowers in such a way that the U.S. reinforces its presence in Africa. However, this seems less likely to happen because of Trump’s isolationist policy. In other words, pursuing protectionist economic policies would mean a U.S. disengagement from multilateral trade agreements.
The African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which facilitates African exports to the U.S., can be questioned or modified, negatively affecting most African economies that rely on this agreement. Although the African continent has the potential to reorganize its economic priorities, this will depend on its leaders’ capacities to adequately navigate an uncertain international context.
Africa will decide its destiny
Ultimately, this influence game may be the lever Africa needs to redefine its role in the global economy. The question remains whether the continent can turn this rivalry into an opportunity for sustainable growth. As true as it can appear, Africa shall not be a mere chessboard where others play their moves. It can potentially become a major player in this rivalry by setting its own rules and imposing its priorities. By forcing each side to offer what it thinks is best, it creates a dynamic where its countries can get more than just promises.
China learned for its better interest that influence is not just measured in miles of road but also in trust and sustainability. Therefore, it seems to have grasped the stakes in governance and resource management, with initiatives that go beyond building infrastructure, including training African political elites.
The U.S., for its part, may be forced to reevaluate its approach by stepping out of China’s shadow and proving that it can build lasting partnerships beyond mere political promises. And this can only be possible if it incorporates more respect for the continent’s real needs, without condescendence and with less strategic considerations.
As for Africa, to the extent that this rivalry could benefit its countries, the latter must avoid getting caught up in the logic of opposing camps. Africa should not have to choose between the East and the West; instead, it should play on this dynamic to attract investments and partnerships that are likely to serve its long-term interests. Beyond the superpowers, it is above all a development model centered on the real needs of the specific African counterparts that must be levied. Therefore, the continent must seize this opportunity to negotiate more strongly and collectively without allowing itself to be reduced to a simple battleground. The real challenge lies in the continent’s ability to transform this competition into an opportunity for economic growth, industrial diversification and local transformation. The coming years will be crucial to determine whether Africa will be able to benefit from this new cold war or whether it will find itself, once again, suffering the consequences of the decisions taken by others.