BRICS vs. The US In Africa

This emerging front of the New Cold War will likely see the Sino-Russo Entente more closely coordinate against the US-led West there.

Africa is increasingly figuring into major countries’ and organizations’ discussions due to its growing importance in global affairs. The UN expects that more than half of the world’s population growth by the 2050 will occur on that continent, with the number of people in sub-Saharan Africa doubling by then. This will open up new market and labor opportunities alongside the existing resource ones that have already attracted international interest, but it’ll also lead to developmental and humanitarian challenges.  

The Kazan Declaration that was just agreed to during the last BRICS Summit speaks highly about helping and empowering Africa during this transformational period, but these countries – whether as a whole, through minilaterals, or bilaterally – will inevitably have to compete with the US there. The latter’s grand strategy takes several forms that’ll be briefly described in this analysis, but it altogether aims to impede others’ efforts to mutually benefit from these processes while exploiting Africa as much as possible.

The most visible manifestation of this strategy is the continued provisioning of humanitarian aid, which sounds noble at first glance but is actually driven by ulterior motives. This form of support has been weaponized over the decades to cultivate and co-opt corrupt elites in order to institutionalize relationships of dependence that are difficult for recipient countries to liberate themselves from. The purpose is to create levers of influence that can be wielded to legitimize lopsided deals with the West.

BRICS – which from here on out refers to either the group as a whole, minilaterals therein, or individual members – can counteract this by assisting their African partners with agricultural development so that they eventually become less reliant on American aid. Major grain producers like Russia can also provide more of their own no-strings-attached aid during the interim. A balance must be struck between meeting immediate needs and moving countries closer to self-sufficiency over the long term.

The next way in which US strategy towards Africa manifests itself is through the “Africa Growth and Opportunity Act” (AGOA) that allows for duty-free trade between them. The downside to this arrangement is that the US has removed countries like Ethiopia and Mali from it as punishment for them refusing to comply with its political demands. In other words, while there are certainly some economic benefits to be had from this arrangement, they can be cut off if countries don’t do what the US wants.

BRICS’ response has been to liberalize trade and investment with Africa as a whole, which is easier than ever due to the creation of the “Africa Continental Free Trade Area” (AfCFTA). China leads the way in this respect due to its much larger and more developed economy relative to other BRICS members, but Russia, India, and the UAE are also making important strides in this direction too. The goal is to diversify these countries’ trade partnerships so that they’re not destabilized if the US kicks them out of AGOA.

Building upon the trade dimension of this strategy is the financial one wherein the US takes advantage of the West’s leading role in global financial institutions like the IMF and World Bank to offer strings-attached loans to desperate countries. These are then weaponized to further entrench their lopsided trade and investment ties while also coercing their leaders into making certain political concessions. The end result is that recipient countries lose more of their sovereignty and risk socio-political unrest.

China has taken the lead among BRICS countries in providing no-strings-attached loans through its Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) to finance mutually beneficial megaprojects and help struggling countries avoid Western debt traps of the sort described above. BRICS’ rising role as a financial actor in its own right, particularly with regard to the New Development Bank that it created, could complement these efforts to counteract claims that African states are just trading Western dependence for Chinese dependence.

Moving along, the US wants to guide Africa’s journey through the “Fourth Industrial Revolution”/“Great Reset” (4IR/GR) by bringing the entire continent online through December 2022’s “Digital Transformation with Africa” (DTA) initiative. The Carnegie Endowment’s report from March 2024 noted that not much had been done with its promised $800 million by then, but if any progress is made and this isn’t just a slush fund or PR stunt, then it would likely lead to continental-wide digital surveillance.

African countries could take a page out of Russia’s and some other BRICS members’ playbooks by passing laws about data localization, which prohibits sending users’ data abroad. That’s not a silver-bullet solution to digital surveillance but it provides the best balance possible between much-needed foreign digital investment into (in this case developing) economies and national security.  In parallel, Africa countries should court such investment from BRICS states, with China already being a prime partner.

Resource extraction is another element of the US’ grand strategy towards Africa, which is being prioritized through the Lobito Corridor that was unveiled by the US and the EU in September 2023 for facilitating the export of Southern African minerals to the Western market. This region is rich in copper, lithium, and other resources that are indispensable for the 4IR/GR in which the US and China are fiercely competing to shape the contours of the future global economy.

The most surefire way to ensure that mineral-rich African countries aren’t exploited is to emulate Tanzania’s 2017 “National Wealth And Resources (Permanent Sovereignty) Act” that forbade the export of raw materials for processing. This is meant to encourage the construction of a domestic processing industry to add value to these exports and provide jobs for its burgeoning population. Global costs will rise if enough countries copy this policy, but it would be for the betterment of their own people.

Segueing into the more nefarious forms of US grand strategy towards Africa, observers can’t forget about the numerous information warfare campaigns that it’s waging across the continent. These are aimed at discrediting its rivals like Russia, stoking inter-state discord such as between BRICS members Ethiopia and Egypt for instance, and exacerbating preexisting internal (usually identity-centric) differences in order to destabilize fragile states through Hybrid Warfare as punishment for not capitulating to the US’ demands.

Better “Pre-Bunking, Media Literacy, & Democratic Security” policies are the only way to enhance the defenses of targeted states and societies, but they’ll take time to be applied even in the best-case scenario so some trouble is bound to follow these campaigns. Reputational damage to BRICS countries can be mitigated through counteroperations, inter-state discord can be managed through BRICS mediation, while internal conflicts might require security assistance from some BRICS states.

The last point directly leads to the next form in which the US’ grand strategy towards Africa manifests itself, namely through the waging of proxy wars like what’s happening in the Sahel. Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger expelled French and US forces over the past few years, formed an alliance prior to exploring a confederation, and were then targeted by more foreign-backed terrorist and separatist attacks. France and the US are working hand-in-hand together with Ukraine to punish those three countries for this.

Russia has taken the lead in helping its new regional partners through the deployment of military advisors and PMCs via a strategy that was elaborated on here for those who’d like to learn about it. Other BRICS countries can help with arms exports and intelligence support if they have the capabilities and will to do so, though most don’t and are instead expected to sit on the sidelines of these proxy wars. If they intensify, then it can’t be ruled out that some formal Western military intervention might follow.

Therein lies the final form of US grand strategy, direct military action against African countries, which is employed on a case-by-case basis whose motives widely vary from Somalia to Libya. The infamous AFRICOM organizes such activities that are greatly facilitated by the archipelago of American bases, including unofficial ones, that spread across the continent since 2001. The current focus on the Sahel might lead to new drone bases in the Ivory Coast from which to “surgically strike” targets in the north.

Once again, Russia is the only BRICS state that has the capabilities and will to counteract these threats, which it could do by empowering its partners (including non-state ones) to retaliate against those states that host US bases and/or target those facilities directly. The NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine could also be intensified as an asymmetrical response to throw the West off balance, but the West could do the same to Russia as revenge for foiling its plans in Africa, thus linking these two New Cold War fronts.

The takeaway from this analysis is that BRICS has a key role to play in helping Africa defend itself from the US’ hegemonic plots, but only Russia will do so in a security sense while China’s economic support will remain unmatched. Accordingly, this emerging front of the New Cold War will likely see the Sino-Russo Entente more closely coordinate against the US-led West there, which’ll provide opportunities for other BRICS states like India to present themselves to African countries as reliable balancers.