While previously, geopolitical competition was centred around physical economic resources, trade of goods and services and other traditional components within States’ tussle for power and influence, we are increasingly witnessing a sharp and strategic contest for a new frontier: the digital sphere. Political powers (with major players being China, the European Union and the United States) are racing to secure digital dominance, not just within their borders, but across the globe. Interestingly, this geopolitical competition for digital dominance seems to have morphed from simply being a commercial competition for market share into becoming a normative battle over values, principles and rules that will govern the global digital economy. In this ongoing battle, Africa and other middle powers/developing nations have to make important decisions for their own digital sovereignty. We must carefully assess and navigate offers of infrastructure, investment and influence from these competing nations, fully conscious of their effect (whether now or in the future) on our digital sovereignty. The partnership, funding and collaboration choices made by African nations today will determine whether the continent can forge a genuinely sovereign digital future or will become entangled in new forms of technological, ideological and political dependency.
Let’s Talk About China
China’s Digital Silk Road (DSR) is “part of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) that finances and supports digital connectivity infrastructure to support China’s technology companies, goods and services.” It, however, evolved from just a commercial initiative to a sophisticated geopolitical tool now projecting economic, technological and increasingly, normative power across the globe.
The global COVID-19 pandemic played a role in accelerating the DSR’s prominence as lockdowns and travel restrictions accentuated the limitations of physical connectivity and the importance of digital infrastructure. As a result of the surge in demand for low-cost digital infrastructure, Chinese technology companies (who had already been well-positioned to meet this need) were able to play a major global role in that phase of global digital transformation.
The Chinese government’s goals and current achievements through the DSR can be summed up into these; (a). to achieve technological self-reliance and secure new markets; (b). to create a China-centric technological and financial ecosystem; (c) to set global standards and shape technology governance and export a distinct model of internet governance.
China champions the idea of cyber sovereignty, which is basically a state-centric model where national governments retain the right to control their domestic internet space, including content moderation, data flows, and surveillance. By providing surveillance technologies, ‘safe city’ solutions, and training for officials in partner countries, the DSR exports both the tools and the ideology of this model, which holds significant appeal for authoritarian-leaning regimes seeking to consolidate control.
Let’s Talk About the West
In response to China’s DSR’s rapid expansion, the United States and the European Union launched their own flagship initiatives.
For the EU, its Global Gateway initiative, which experts view as an alternative and rival to China’s Belt and Road Initiative, is presented by the EU as an initiative to “put people at the centre and the principles of trusted connectivity, such as data protection.” The core principles of the Global Gateway are heavily values-laden revealing that the geopolitics is not merely about commercial competition. The EU’s official communications consistently emphasise a commitment to “democratic values,” “high standards,” “good governance and transparency,” and “equal partnerships”.
The United States’ Digital Transformation with Africa (DTA) initiative was designed to be a whole-of-government effort to expand digital access and literacy, and to strengthen what it calls “digital enabling environments” across the continent. The initiative was launched with pledges to catalyse over $350 million in direct investments and to mobilise an additional $450 million in financing for Africa’s digital sector. However, the DTA’s efforts have faltered because of limited resources and now, under President Trump’s foreign policy reset, it is undetermined whether the DTA will remain or be modified.
Who is winning the tussle?
As established, the geopolitical competition is not merely over contracts for ‘who will build the digital infrastructure of Africa’ but is a real struggle over the rules and principles and will govern the 21st-century global economy. So far, the Western normative model is presented as that of ‘trusted connectivity’ built on a foundation of liberal-democratic values, while China’s model leans more towards state-controlled efficiency.
Beyond models and principles, though, China seems to be rapidly implementing more tangible, completed DSR projects and infrastructure such as 4G and 5G networks, data centres and government e-service platforms, which are visible within African cities, while the West is perceived to be slower and given to greater abstraction.
Additionally, the West’s funding strategy of mobilising private capital and using complex financial instruments like blended finance and risk guarantees creates less appeal compared to China’s more direct state-to-state concessional loans, aid and interest-free loans. Speaking practically, to an African finance minister who is seeking to build a new fibre-optic backbone, the Chinese offer is often simpler, faster, and more direct. To her, the Chinese model offers speed and scale. Hence, although in principle, the Western model promises higher standards of governance and long-term sustainability, it is less attractive.
Furthermore, China’s ‘hands-off’ approach to the domestic governance of its partners provides an added, powerful and often underestimated competitive advantage. Typically, Western partnerships come with explicit or implicit conditions related to democracy, human rights, and specifics of data privacy regulation. In contrast, China’s foreign policy principle of “non-interference” means that it offers powerful digital infrastructure and tools without attaching these same diplomatic or political pressures. This, again, makes China attractive for African leaders who are eager to modernise their state capacity but want to avoid external scrutiny of their domestic political affairs.
Putting all of this together, China’s speed, scale, low-hitch financing and seeming non-interference in domestic governance versus the West’s more abstract, slower support punctuated by overt ideological propositions and complex high-stakes financing models, may create a dangerous digital governance regime in Africa. Dangerous because we may begin to have laws and regulations, which on paper, reflect ideologies prescribed and recommended by Western partnerships and yet have, in practice, state-centric and controlling practices of digital governance as a result of China’s significant and tangible foothold in the African countries.
This potpourri of mismatching ideologies and the dissonance of policy and practice creates an environment where the continent cannot truly forge its own sovereign destiny. That is, unless African countries band together and adopt sophisticated strategies to navigate these waters.
Recommended Strategic Positioning for Africa
Neither Western nor Chinese ideologies are a perfect match for total adoption in Africa, because Africa must create its own homegrown, afro-centric ideologies that match with its values, developmental goals and the needs of its people. In a utopian world, the recommendation would be to forgo these offers of aid, loans and partnerships, but the reality is that many African countries require this support for digital transformation and development. Quoting Djibouti’s finance minister, “We thank the Chinese for our infrastructure development and we want our other partners to help us—not just tell us about the Chinese debt trap,”
Therefore, the following are recommendations for Africa’s strategic positioning as it receives the support of foreign governments for its digital transformation in infrastructure and governance:
- Prevent Over-Reliance: African governments must track and measure their dependency meter on one government (e.g China) as over-reliance can risk creating deep-seated technological dependencies, vendor lock-in and the implicit(or explicit) adoption of governance norms that don’t align with national values.
- Consider Multi-alignment: Multi-alignment basically means being in open relationships with all foreign stakeholders, and it’s a great way to leverage the ongoing competition. African governments are encouraged to be diplomatic and strategic about considering partnership offers and potentially leveraging offers to secure more favourable financing terms, better substantive technology transfers, and greater respect for our own policy priorities.
- Pursue Collective Action: The most effective strategy for the continent is for us to band together in order to exponentially magnify our position within the geopolitical tussle. Thai writer opines that the primary obstacle to African digital sovereignty is not, in fact, overwhelming external pressure, but debilitating internal fragmentation. Why are both China and the West able to exert maximum influence? Because they can engage with African countries on a bilateral, one-on-one basis, maybe even pitting the countries against each other as competitors, reducing our bargaining power. Our continued failure to ratify and implement continental frameworks like the Malabo Convention is a self-inflicted wound that sustains this fragmentation and weakens the continent’s collective bargaining power. Therefore, the most critical strategic imperative for Africa is not necessarily to push back against Beijing or Washington, but to build consensus, political will, and institutional coherence within Africa itself. Why should we be passive rule-takers when we can, through collective action, be norm entrepreneurs shipping our own values, principles and standards.
In humble conclusion…
Africa is at a pivotal moment in its history. And this is not written in a cliche way. The intense geopolitical contest between China’s Digital Silk Road and Western digital agendas has created an opportunity for African nations to come together, improve our bargaining power, build internal capacity, be inspired by collective political will and approach external powerful actors in a unified manner. There is a lot of work for African policymakers and the regional multilateral bodies to do. Chief among these is the prioritisation of the ratification and implementation of key continental frameworks.
Overcoming our internal fragmentation is the first and most critical step in forging a truly sovereign digital future.