By Andrew Sylva
Africa stands at the crossroads of history. Once the principal victim of the 19th-century “Scramble for Africa”—when European powers partitioned the continent with little regard for its peoples, cultures, or long-term welfare—it is now facing a new geopolitical contest. In the 21st century, this contest is more diffuse, involving global powers from the West to the East, each eager to secure influence in Africa’s rich resource base, burgeoning markets, strategic geographies, and young population. While some African nations have demonstrated sovereignty and agency, others are entangled in relationships that threaten long-term political autonomy, economic stability, and cultural integrity.
As Kwame Nkrumah warned, “Seek ye first the political kingdom, and all else shall be added unto you; but seek ye first the economic kingdom, and ye shall be cast into political servitude.” This haunting reminder resonates today as Africa grapples with the implications of renewed foreign interest.
The New Geopolitical Contest: A Pan-African overview
Today’s “Scramble” differs from that of the 19th century in appearance yet echoes it in consequence. It is characterised by strategic investments, military partnerships, trade agreements, structural economic controls, and cultural influence campaigns. Powers such as China, the United States, Russia, and European states vie for access to Africa’s vast mineral wealth—cobalt in the Democratic Republic of Congo, oil in Nigeria and Angola, rare earth elements across the continent—while securing military footholds and diplomatic loyalty.
Chinese investments illustrate this dynamic clearly. Through initiatives like the Belt and Road, China has financed major infrastructure projects, from railways in Kenya to ports in Tanzania. China’s presence is often met with mixed assessments: while governments appreciate infrastructure development, critics argue the debt burdens associated with Chinese loans compromise sovereignty, creating a “debt-trap diplomacy” that undermines long-term growth and independence.
But China is not the only suitor. Western powers, under the guise of promoting democracy and good governance, pursue their own interests—economic, military, and strategic. The United States, for instance, emphasises security cooperation and market access, especially in technology and energy. Russia, in turn, has expanded its footprint through military agreements and resource deals, particularly in Central and Southern Africa.
In this competitive environment, Africa’s leaders must ask: are these partnerships advancing the continent’s development or rein scribing patterns of dependency?
Nigeria and France: An unbecoming romance
Nowhere is this question more pressing than in the evolving relationship between Nigeria and France. Nigeria, Africa’s largest economy and most populous nation, has historically balanced its foreign relations across global powers. However, its recent overtures toward France are concerning in light of the broader trajectory among Francophone African countries.
Across West and Central Africa, former French colonies such as Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, and the Central African Republic have openly challenged French influence—expelling troops, renouncing currency arrangements, and seeking alternative partnerships. People in these countries have protested perceived neo-colonial interference, economic exploitation, and political manipulation by France.
Yet here, in Nigeria—a proud Anglophone nation with a vibrant history of sovereignty and anti-colonial struggle—there emerges what can only be described as an ill-timed and potentially counterproductive romance with France. While bilateral cooperation is not inherently problematic, the optics and substance of this relationship raise questions: is Nigeria aligning with France out of strategic necessity, or out of short-sighted elite interests that fail to secure Nigeria’s long-term national interest?
In foreign relations, can opportunism mask as strategy? When personal interests of elites drive policy over national interest, the consequence is often grievous. As Frantz Fanon sharply observed, “Each generation must, out of relative obscurity, discover its mission, fulfill it, or betray it.” If Nigeria’s current leadership betrays the nation’s mission for Africa’s dignity, growth, and autonomy, the repercussions will be felt politically, economically, and culturally.
Regional case studies: How the new scramble is unfolding
1. West Africa: Sovereignty in question
In Mali, the ousting of French troops catalysed a seismic shift. Frustrated by persistent insecurity and perceived French indifference or interference, Malian authorities turned to Russian military contractors. The result is a reconfiguration of alliances that underscores Africa’s agency—but also highlights the dangers of abandoning established partnerships without a coherent alternative strategy.
In Burkina Faso and Niger, similar shifts away from France reflect popular discontent. These nations are asserting their sovereignty by recalibrating foreign military and economic partnerships. Yet these actions also come with risks, including heightened instability as new partners with their own agendas step in.
In this context, Nigeria’s pursuit of closer ties with France seems tone-deaf to regional sentiments. Rather than leading a collective West African assertion of autonomy and balanced diplomacy, Nigeria risks appearing acquiescent to a former colonial power’s interests.
2. East Africa: China’s infrastructure web
Kenya’s investment in the Standard Gauge Railway—financed by Chinese loans—has connected major cities and spurred economic activity. Yet it has also saddled Kenya with debt that critics argue will constrain fiscal policy for years. The looming question is: at what cost does infrastructure come?
Similarly, Ethiopia’s rapid development plans rely heavily on Chinese involvement, though political instability has complicated these engagements. Across East Africa, China’s footprint demonstrates the dual nature of foreign investment: tangible benefits on one hand, and long-term economic burdens on the other.
3. Central Africa: Resource interests and military engagements
In the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), China and Western mining corporations compete for access to cobalt and copper. Meanwhile, localised armed conflicts and governance challenges make the DRC a strategic prize whose resources are coveted by external powers. Here, the geopolitics of resource extraction dictate foreign involvement, often sidelining Congolese voices in negotiations that affect their own resources.
4. Southern Africa: Russia and strategic alliances
In nations like Zimbabwe and Angola, Russia has leveraged historical ties to secure military and energy partnerships. While Western nations emphasise sanctions and conditional engagement, Russia positions itself as an alternative ally unconstrained by governance preconditions. This alternative appeals to leaders seeking autonomy from Western pressure—but it also exposes these countries to new forms of geopolitical competition that may not prioritise local development.
Political implications: Sovereignty vs dependency
Politically, the new scramble for Africa tests the very idea of sovereignty. When foreign powers establish military bases, defense agreements, and security pacts, they often leverage these for political influence. African leaders may find themselves balancing sovereignty with security imperatives, particularly where insurgencies and terrorism pose existential threats. Yet reliance on external military support can erode political autonomy and embolden domestic critics who see foreign boots as symbols of compromised independence.
The case of Nigeria’s engagement with France is instructive. If Nigerian security cooperation with France prioritises French strategic interests over Nigeria’s security architecture, the result will not be stability but dependency. A nation that cannot define its security agenda without external validation risks undermining its political agency.
Economic Implications: Who wins, who loses?
Economically, foreign engagements bring investment, trade, and infrastructure. However, the distribution of benefits remains uneven. Chinese loans, for example, have financed ports, highways, and railways—but repayment terms and debt sustainability raise alarms. Western trade agreements promise market access, yet conditions related to governance and labor standards can restrict African economic autonomy.
France, with its historical economic presence in Francophone Africa—especially through mechanisms like the CFA franc—illustrates how economic ties can constrain monetary policy and national development strategies. While some argue these arrangements provide stability, critics note they perpetuate dependency and limit fiscal flexibility.
If Nigeria deepens economic ties with France without safeguarding its interests, it risks entering an economic arrangement that mirrors these asymmetries—where capital flows benefit French investors and Nigerian elites, rather than strengthening domestic industries and long-term economic sovereignty.
Cultural implications: Identity under pressure
Culturally, foreign influence often extends beyond markets and governments into the hearts and minds of people. Soft power—through media, language, education, and cultural exports—shapes identities. France continues to exert cultural influence across its former colonies through language promotion, educational partnerships, and cultural institutions.
For Nigeria—a nation with its own rich cultural tapestry and global cultural exports, from Nollywood to Afrobeats—alignment with France raises questions about cultural positioning. Does Nigeria need to recalibrate its cultural diplomacy to assert its identity, or will entanglement with France dilute its cultural autonomy?
Conclusion: Charting an African path forward
Africa’s future should be crafted by Africans. The new scramble for Africa presents both opportunities and grave risks. Partnerships with global powers can bring investment, technology, and support—but only if grounded in clear terms that prioritize African interests, sovereignty, and dignity.
As Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o powerfully stated, “The struggle of language and culture is inseparable from the struggle for national independence, human dignity, and self-determination.” In an era of renewed geopolitical competition, Africa must guard not only its political and economic sovereignty but also its cultural soul.
Nigeria’s current romance with France must be measured against this broader imperative. If this relationship serves narrow elite interests rather than the Nigerian people, it is unbecoming and unsustainable. Nigeria, like all African nations, must cultivate partnerships that enhance its autonomy, strengthen its institutions, and contribute to lasting development.
The new scramble for Africa need not replicate the exploitative patterns of the past. Africa can—and must—be an equal agent in shaping its destiny. But this requires vigilance, strategic clarity, and steadfast commitment to the principles of sovereignty and self-determination. The world may be watching Africa’s resources, markets, and strategic geographies—but Africa must watch itself, ensuring its future is not written by outside powers, but by Africans who believe in their own collective potential.
“Africa is not poor. It is poorly understood.” This insight should guide not only how the world engages with Africa, but how Africa engages with the world.
