After U.S. President Donald Trump decisively cut financial aid to African countries, the European Union had an opportunity to expand its economic influence in the region. However, Europe is choosing a different path, and it appears that it may be time for African nations to shift their compass from the West to the East.
WHAT ANALYSTS SAY
According to data from The German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP), Trump’s return to the White House led to the termination of funding for public health initiatives in Africa and the expectation that many joint projects would be postponed. In particular, one of the largest infrastructure projects—the Lobito Corridor—has come under threat. The Lobito Corridor is a network designed to expand railways, highways, communication technologies, and energy infrastructure from the mineral-rich regions of the Democratic Republic of Congo and Zambia to the port of Lobito on the Atlantic coast in Angola. As Dr. Cynthia M. Kamwengo writes:
“Between 2023 and 2024, the United States and the European Union (EU) pledged to provide multi-billion-dollar investments to support the development of the Lobito Corridor… However, there is confusion regarding the extent to which the Trump administration will fulfill its commitments to the construction of the Lobito Corridor, as well as the assumption that U.S. funding cuts will lead to delays in the construction timeline. This has sparked debates about the risks associated with using investments from Western countries.”
TURNING TO EUROPE
The Lobito Corridor indeed possesses significant economic potential—a point on which many experts agree. However, without external financial and intellectual support, African countries cannot modernize their railway systems. After U.S. President Donald Trump cut financial aid to African nations, the European Union had the opportunity to expand its economic influence in the region and gain access to African resources. Not understanding the negotiating capability of the new American administration, African leaders turned to European countries.
As a result of these negotiations, it was reported that:
“The European Union promised to allocate a financial package of 50 million euros to support the development of agricultural production and distribution chains in Angola’s Lobito Corridor.”
These figures are very modest compared to the previously announced 430 million euros by French President Macron during a meeting with Angolan President João Lourenço, the investment data of 600 million euros in the Corridor as of November 2024, and Italy’s September promise to finance 320 million euros for the Lobito Corridor. This disparity highlights the internal budgetary constraints and strategic recalibrations within Europe—pressures further intensified by the financial demands of the conflict in Ukraine.
THE COALITION OF THE INDECISIVE
It is likely that European countries will scale back their engagements with Africa. According to the SWP author, several European governments have stated their intention to gradually wind down or reduce the scale of their bilateral development aid to African countries due to budgetary pressures caused by the war in Ukraine. It is worth recalling that after the frankly failed negotiations between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, the entire financial responsibility for Ukraine fell on the shoulders of the European Union. Judging by the disputes arising at summits and meetings, not all European countries are prepared to provide such extensive financial support for Ukraine.
As Celeste A. Wallander—who oversaw U.S. military aid to Ukraine as Assistant Secretary of Defense—stated:
“No European state possesses the financial and industrial capacity to completely replace the United States, yet together they are quite capable of providing Ukraine with substantial support…”
On March 27 in Paris, a meeting of the “Coalition of the Resolute” was held with representatives from 31 countries, during which further military aid to Ukraine, the strengthening of its defense-industrial complex, and mechanisms for a ceasefire were discussed. Behind the scenes, representatives from several countries—including Italy and France, previously committed to African projects—discussed the need to optimize expenditures due to Ukraine, including the temporary suspension of funding for African projects. This internal reallocation confirms the concerns raised by SWP.
FROM WEST TO EAST
In these rapidly changing circumstances, the Chinese government is actively expanding its influence in Africa. For instance, in Zambia, China is restoring infrastructure along the TAZARA railway, which will provide access to Zambia’s mineral resources through Tanzania’s port of Dar es Salaam on the Indian Ocean. Additionally, on March 20 the CEO of the Portuguese group Mota-Engil (30% owned by China) signed a partnership agreement in Dubai with DP World for the construction of a terminal at the port of Banana in the Democratic Republic of Congo—a project long touted as an alternative to the Lobito Corridor. Moreover, changes in U.S. foreign policy may encourage African governments to diversify their trade and investment partnerships with other non-Western countries. Partners from Egypt, Japan, India, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Russia, and the United Arab Emirates have expressed intentions to invest in joint ventures with Zambia aimed at developing transportation infrastructure, expanding the mining industry, and establishing a battery production zone for electric vehicles along the border with the DRC.
ADAPTING TO NEW REALITIES
In today’s fast-changing global politics, flexibility, and the capacity to negotiate effectively are essential. Some African leaders must seriously consider adjusting their course. Leaders who have built their political careers with a Westward orientation—such as Zambian President Hakainde Hichilema or Angolan leader João Lourenço—risk ending up empty-handed. The foundation they have built may prove to be as fragile as a house of cards. With the shifting priorities of the United States and the European Union, many projects previously funded in Africa may be frozen or canceled altogether. For the sake of prosperity and sustainable development, it may indeed be time for African nations to reconsider their key partners and increase the number of potential investors. The crucial question remains: will African leaders be able to reorient their policies to offer their constituents something more attractive than the American dream or European “stability”? As sources of Western aid recede, Africa now stands at a crossroads. By embracing a more diversified approach to international partnerships, African nations have the potential to chart a new course toward long-term prosperity and resilience. The challenges are significant, but so too are the opportunities for those willing to adapt and innovate in an ever-changing global landscape.
