Infrastructure Diplomacy: a new, more sophisticated form of scramble for Africa?

Infrastructure development has, in recent years, shifted from being primarily an area of cooperation to becoming a central arena of geopolitical competition. Major global powers are advancing large-scale initiatives that blend investment with diplomacy. China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the EU's Global Gateway exemplify this trend, alongside the U.S. Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII) and Japan's Quality Infrastructure Initiative (QII). All these frameworks are more than financing tools: they are instruments of infrastructure diplomacy designed to advance strategic interests and project influence in Africa.

Infrastructure diplomacy refers to the use of large-scale infrastructure projects-such as roads, railways, ports, energy grids, and digital networks-as tools of foreign policy and international influence. It combines diplomatic, economic, and strategic objectives by financing, constructing, or supporting infrastructure beyond national borders. The motivations are diverse: strengthening bilateral relations (e.g., infrastructure as a gesture of partnership), expanding economic influence (e.g., opening new trade corridors), projecting geopolitical power (e.g., securing strategic access to ports or energy resources), and promoting regional integration (e.g., funding cross-border railways or power pools).

China's Belt and Road Initiative

The most visible example of infrastructure diplomacy is China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), launched in 2013. Its overarching aim is to enhance trade ties, build mutual trust, and promote greater policy coordination among countries that once connected China's ancient land and maritime silk routes to Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. The BRI has financed extensive infrastructure, including railways (ex. the Addis Ababa-Djibouti and the Mombasa-Nairobi SGRs), ports and energy plants (e.g., the LAPSSET corridor), and digital networks (such as the "Access to Satellite TV for 10,000 African Villages" project). The model relies heavily on bilateral agreements, concessional loans, and turnkey projects implemented by Chinese firms. The diplomatic dimension of the BRI lies in its ability to consolidate China’s political ties with African states while enhancing its influence in multilateral forums, thereby positioning Beijing as a key partner in shaping Africa’s development trajectory.

The EU's Global Gateway

Launched in 2021, the Global Gateway is explicitly framed as a response to global competition over infrastructure finance, particularly the BRI. With a strong African focus, this program aims at promoting sustainable infrastructure, renewable energy, digital connectivity, transport corridors, and human capital development, while upholding high environmental and governance standards.

Its diplomatic dimension lies in reinforcing the EU’s role as a normative power, i.e., as an actor whose influence is grounded not primarily in military or economic dominance, but in the promotion of norms and values such as sustainability, democratic governance, and rules-based cooperation. Through this approach, the EU seeks both to shape development trajectories in line with its standards and to counterbalance China’s expanding influence in Africa.

Other infrastructure diplomacy initiatives in Africa include the following:

• PGII (U.S. and G7): Prioritizes climate resilience, digital infrastructure, and health systems, framed as a democratic alternative to the BRI.
• Japan's QII: Focuses on high-quality, sustainable infrastructure with an emphasis on fiscal responsibility and debt sustainability.
• AU's PIDA: Africa's own framework, designed to align external investments with continental priorities such as Agenda 2063 and AfCFTA connectivity.

Despite differences in financing models and political narratives, these initiatives share several core objectives:

• Bridging the infrastructure gap to foster regional integration and boost trade among African nations and between African nations and the external partners and economic blocs driving these initiatives.
• Enhancing connectivity through transport, energy, and digital networks.
• Supporting industrialization and value chains by easing logistics and energy bottlenecks.
• Strengthening geopolitical influence by linking economic cooperation to strategic partnerships.
• Shaping international norms and standards on sustainability, transparency, and technology.

All the above initiatives are designed to reshape Africa’s connectivity and development pathways while simultaneously advancing the strategic influence of external actors. What is emerging from these programs is not a renewed “scramble for Africa”, but rather a strategic reconfiguration of partnerships between Africa and major global powers in which both sides - at least in principle - should benefit. For external powers, Africa represents access to critical natural resources and rapidly expanding consumer markets, with regulatory alignment as a tool used to facilitate the entry of their goods and services in African markets. For African countries, these initiatives hold the promise of new investment flows, upgraded infrastructure, and expanded opportunities for industrialization and regional integration. Unlike the extractive logic of the colonial era, this evolving landscape offers the potential, if carefully managed, to produce win–win outcomes: fostering sustainable development while embedding Africa more deeply into global value chains.

For Africa, this dual dynamic presents both risks and opportunities. The risks arise when investment projects are poorly coordinated or insufficiently scrutinized: without careful assessment by African governments and local stakeholders, projects may fail to generate tangible benefits for local communities, reinforcing extractive patterns or exacerbating dependency. There is also the danger of overlapping geopolitical agendas, unsustainable debt accumulation, and fragmented infrastructure development that does not align with regional or continental priorities.

Conversely, the opportunities lie in harnessing this competitive environment to accelerate Africa’s development agenda. When strategically managed, these initiatives can help close the continent’s substantial infrastructure gap, strengthen regional integration under the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), and advance the objectives of Agenda 2063 by fostering industrialization, value-chain development, and connectivity. By carefully selecting and aligning projects with local and regional priorities, African policymakers can leverage external investment to promote inclusive growth, technological upgrading, and resilient development.

Seizing these opportunities requires strategic leadership from African governments and continental institutions. External financing must be aligned with regional development priorities, governance and transparency mechanisms must be reinforced, and inclusivity in project design and implementation must be guaranteed. If managed effectively, Africa can transform this competitive landscape into a developmental race: one that consolidates long-term growth, resilience, and autonomy, rather than dependency.