Leveraging BRICS Without Sacrificing AfCFTA: Africa’s Strategic Imperative

Africa finds itself at a pivotal moment in history, caught between the allure of global alliances and the promise of regional unity.

On one side, BRICS, a coalition of emerging economies comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, which offers Africa a chance to amplify its voice on the global stage and access resources that could accelerate development, and on the other hand, the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) which represents the continent’s most ambitious initiative to date, one that seeks to foster economic integration, industrial growth, and self-reliance.

The Challenge.

The core dilemma that should trouble African leaders and policymakers is how to navigate these competing, and sometimes conflicting, opportunities.

While BRICS represent a significant opportunity for Africa to expand trade, boost investment, and gain access to advanced technologies, the structure of Africa's engagement with BRICS may inadvertently reinforce historical patterns of exploitation.

Key players in BRICS, particularly China and India, have long been major importers of Africa's natural resources, often at the expense of developing local industries.

If Africa becomes overly reliant on BRICS, there is a risk of perpetuating the continent's role as a raw material supplier, rather than a hub for value-added manufacturing. Such a scenario would undermine AfcFTA’s goal of fostering industrialization and regional value chains that drive intra-African trade and economic growth.

To put it simply, Africa must find a way to engage with BRICS without falling back into the same dependency traps that have historically stymied the continent’s economic development.

A Cautionary Tale.

A closer look at Africa's current dealings with BRICS, especially China, reveals troubling similarities to past patterns of exploitation. Over the past two decades, China has dramatically increased its economic footprint in Africa, largely through investments in infrastructure and resource extraction.

While these investments are often framed as mutually beneficial, there is growing concern that Africa’s engagement with China, as the dominant BRICS player, is skewed in favor of China’s geopolitical and economic interests.

For example, many Chinese investments in Africa focus primarily on the extraction of natural resources—minerals, oil, and gas—which are then exported to China for processing. This continues the historical pattern where Africa remains a supplier of raw materials, unable to process or add value to these resources locally.

Moreover, many of the large-scale infrastructure projects funded by Chinese loans come with high interest rates and repayment terms that strain African economies.

Countries such as Kenya, Zambia, and Djibouti have accumulated significant debt under China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), raising concerns about the long-term sustainability of these investments.

In some cases, this debt has led to fears of “debt trap diplomacy,” where countries are forced to cede control of strategic national assets to China in exchange for debt relief. This has led to concerns that strategic infrastructure projects, which are meant to benefit Africa, may end up benefiting China far more than the African countries involved.

The influx of cheap Chinese goods into African markets also poses a challenge to Africa's budding manufacturing sector. Local producers often struggle to compete with the low-cost imports from China, which undermines the very industrial growth that AfCFTA aims to foster.

In this way, Africa’s engagement with China (and by extension, BRICS) risks repeating the exploitative trade relationships of the past, where Africa’s industrialization was stunted to serve the needs of external powers.

The Geopolitical Dimensions: Russia and China’s Influence.

Russia, too, has ramped up its presence in Africa, though in a different manner. Through arms sales, military alliances, and even paramilitary involvement via the Wagner Group, Russia has sought to increase its influence in key African countries, such as Libya, Mali, the Central African Republic (CAR), and Sudan.

Russia’s military engagements, often in exchange for access to lucrative mining concessions, raise questions about whether these partnerships truly contribute to the continent’s development or simply serve Russia’s geopolitical ambitions.

While Russia's soft power initiatives, such as scholarships and educational exchanges, may appear beneficial, they are frequently accompanied by a subtle agenda to challenge Western influence in Africa.

Russia’s activities on the continent seem to reflect a broader strategy to gain diplomatic support in international forums, such as the United Nations, where African votes are crucial.

The increasing presence of Russian interests across Africa suggests that both China and Russia see the continent as a key battleground for reshaping the global order, with implications for Africa's development and sovereignty.

The Path Forward

Despite the risks, Africa is in a unique position to leverage BRICS for its benefit. To do so, however, the continent must approach these partnerships with a strategic mindset that safeguards AfcFTA’s goals.

Africa must avoid the historical trap of being relegated to the role of a raw material supplier. Instead, the continent should negotiate for investments that promote value addition, industrialization, and regional integration.

One of the most pressing needs is for Africa to engage with BRICS as a unified bloc, rather than as individual nations. This collective bargaining approach would allow the continent to negotiate fairer trade terms, secure better access for its value-added goods, and ensure that investments align with AfcFTA’s broader vision of regional integration.

For example, instead of simply exporting raw minerals to BRICS countries, African nations should push for joint ventures in processing industries, where raw materials are transformed locally, creating jobs and fostering regional trade.

Another critical area of focus is infrastructure. BRICS countries, especially China, have been instrumental in financing and building key infrastructure projects in Africa, such as railways, ports, and roads. While these projects are essential for Africa’s development, they must be carefully planned to ensure they facilitate intra-African trade, rather than primarily serving as export corridors to BRICS markets.

Infrastructure investments should aim to connect African countries to one another, enhancing cross-border trade and regional connectivity, which is crucial to the success of AfCFTA.

Technology transfer and capacity building are equally important. Africa must insist that BRICS investments come with provisions for technology transfer and the development of local expertise.

Rather than relying on foreign contractors, African nations should advocate for partnerships that involve local companies, employ African workers, and offer training programs to build the continent’s technical capacity.

Finally, transparency and accountability in negotiations with BRICS are paramount. African governments must ensure that investment agreements are open, fair, and serve the interests of the continent.

This means involving civil society, local communities, and independent oversight bodies in the decision-making process to prevent exploitative practices that may result in unfavorable loan terms or the loss of strategic assets.

In conclusion, Africa must approach its engagement with BRICS with a long-term view that prioritizes its regional integration and development goals.

AfCFTA represents the continent’s best hope for achieving economic self-reliance, and this vision should not be compromised by exploitative agreements or unsustainable debt.

The writer is a Sustainable Supply Chain & Contract Management expert and writer focused on global business trends and policies. Email: [email protected].