Africa-Summit Partnership: Pros and Cons

Author: Ebou Njie – Master’s degree student, Faculty of World Economic and International Affairs, HSE University (Moscow)

Africa-Summit Partnership has recently gained traction within the field of international relations. Over the last couple of years, numerous summits have been held between African states and other powerful organizations (the European Union) as well as nations such as China, the United States, Russia, Turkey, and India etc. These gatherings are frequently touted as the next step forward in relations between Africa and its global partners to improve cooperation on trade, infrastructure, technology, education, climate policy, security and many other areas. During these summits, partnerships have been hailed as relationships between equals striving for better development in Africa as well as for their global partners. “An integrated, prosperous and peaceful Africa, driven by its own citizens”[1]. Africa-Summit partnerships have great potential, but they also pose severe risks to Africa’s development. On the one hand, Africa-Summit partnerships will help fast-track development across the continent and increase cooperation with other countries if conducted in good faith, on equal footing, and with emphasis on long-term sustainable growth. On the other hand, if powerful countries or organizations use Africa as another arena for geopolitical rivalry or instrumentally place their own interests over African interests, these summits could lead to renewed dependence and a loss of African agency. Consequently, this essay will examine critically the pros and cons of Africa-Summit partnerships in three different scenarios.

Source: Flickr

Strategic Economic Cooperation Creates Mutual Benefits

According to a positive scenario, Africa-Summit partnerships form a powerful engine of economic growth. Africa is rich in natural resources and has the youngest population globally. Partner countries often have capital, technology, or industry knowledge that Africa needs. With the right commitment to mutual benefit, partnerships can have a positive outcome. Infrastructure development offers a good example. Well-planned investments in roads, railways, ports, and internet networks can help trade flow more freely across Africa. “Infrastructure deficits make Africans less productive and hurt their competitiveness.”[2] If African leaders can ensure that summit agreements include clauses about local hiring, skills development, and fair contracting, infrastructure can catalyze broader sustainable development.

Access to larger markets is another possible benefit. Trade deals, which support the African Continental Free Trade Area, can help Africa integrate into the world economy on better terms. “Trade is a force for development when institutions are strong.”[3] So, this scenario would be ideal for Africa because it would allow African states to negotiate partnerships on behalf of the continent rather than be pit against each other. However, strong oversight needs to make sure cooperation is substantive instead of only symbolic.

Dangerous Dependency and Neo-Colonialism

The second scenario does not bode well for Africa. Instead of mutual benefit, international summits lead to dependency on powerful actors. Due to its colonial history and subsequent processes of globalization, Africa has already suffered from resource extraction, unfair trade practices, imposition of tariffs and overseas economic policymaking. For instance, some infrastructure loans might only burden African countries with more debt if repayment plans are not made clear. The International Monetary Fund stated many African states are experiencing high levels of debt stress[4]. Economies are in debt, foreign governments can hold Africa’s natural resources hostage until the debt is over.

Powerful states are also in competition with each other to acquire African minerals. Cobalt, lithium, oil, and rare earth elements are highly-demanded by China, the United States, and European countries. Rather than aiding Africa’s industrialization, these powerful countries may simply drain Africa of another valuable resource. “African development can only be achieved through the African control of their resources.”[5]

Therefore, neo-colonialism is mostly about Africa partnerships with powerful global players. Economic dependency allows powerful states to influence African politics and society. If Africa only supplies raw materials to these countries and does not produce goods itself, the continent will never fully develop. For these reasons, when engaging in partnerships with foreign states and organizations, Africa must stand strong and guarantee that its own interests should be met.

Joint Voice In Global Politics, Peace and Security

The third scenario analyzes how Africa can leverage partnerships for more political and security cooperation on the world stage. Africa is home to over 1.4 billion people and is the largest voting bloc in the United Nations General Assembly. However, Africa’s voice is still not heard enough in global governance institutions like the UN Security Council or International Monetary Fund.

Climate justice is one field where Africa can play a leading role on the world stage. Africa contributes the least to climate change but feels many of its adverse effects. Summits with international partners can help African states push for better climate finance and humanitarian support.

Similarly, Africa can play a more significant role in global peace and security if unified behind certain positions. African countries provide the bulk of UN Peacekeeping forces but have little say in decision-making. Africa-Summit partnerships can strengthen anti-terrorism initiatives in hotspot regions like the Sahel or the Horn of Africa.

On the downside, external military presence can worsen civil wars if outside powers support opposing sides. In addition, security partnerships are useless if they back authoritarian governments. “Stability cannot be achieved by oppression.”[6]

To conclude this section, it should emphasize that Africa must use summits with other countries to expand its own diplomatic influence. Africa must not become a battleground for powerful states to compete over resources and military bases. Africa should make partnerships that increase the power of African institutions, specifically the African Union Peace and Security Council.

Thus, Africa-Summit Partnership has pros and cons that are critically important to understand. On the one hand, Africa can benefit greatly from investments, skills training, technology transfers, larger markets for trade, and more say in global politics. On the other hand, unequal partnerships might lead to Africa falling into debt, losing control of valuable resources to powerful actors, and becoming another arena for geopolitical competition. Africa-Summit partnerships are only useful to Africa if Africans approach them united, strategic, and confident. Africa does not need to refuse partnerships with other countries and organizations, but it needs to mold them to fit African priorities. As long as Africa prioritizes industrialization, education, infrastructure, democratic governance, and regional integration, it can negotiate summit partnerships that further its goals.

[1] Agenda 2063. The Africa We Want // African Union. 2015. URL: https://au.int/en/agenda2063/overview

[2] Africa infrastructure diagnostic report // World Bank. 2020. URL: https://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/all-africa-digital-transformation/country-diagnostics

[3] Rodrik, D. (2017). Straight Talk on Trade: Ideas for a Sane World Economy. Princeton University Press. 336 p.

[4] Regional Economic Outlook: Sub-Saharan Africa // International Monetary Fund. 2023. URL: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/reo/afr/2023/april/english/text.pdf

[5] Rodney, W. (1972). How Europe underdeveloped Africa. Published 2011 by Black Classic Press. 341 p. URL: https://arxiujosepserradell.cat/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/How-Europe-Underdeveloped-Africa-by-Recor...

[6] Fukuyama, F. (2014). Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalisation of Democracy. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2014. 690 p.