Africa has seen this story before. The faces change, the language softens, the summits become more polished, but the central question remains painfully familiar: Who truly benefits when global powers rush toward the continent promising partnership, investment and development?

The modern race for Africa no longer marches in with colonial flags or military conquest alone. It arrives through trade agreements, infrastructure loans, security pacts, technology partnerships and carefully staged diplomatic tours. Yet beneath the polished speeches and promises of "mutual growth,” I cannot help but wonder whether the world has genuinely changed its approach to the continent or simply modernized the methods of influence.

The comparison between Charles de Gaulle’s 1944 Brazzaville Conference and French President Emmanuel Macron’s current African strategy is difficult to ignore. De Gaulle understood during World War II that France’s survival as a global power depended heavily on its colonies. Brazzaville became the stage where France attempted to preserve imperial relevance while presenting reforms as progress.

More than 80 years later, Macron appears to be navigating a similar geopolitical crossroads. France’s traditional dominance in Francophone Africa has weakened dramatically. One after another, military-led governments in Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger and Chad pushed French forces out, dismantling defense agreements that once symbolized Paris’ grip over the Sahel. Anti-French sentiment exploded across West Africa, fueled by years of insecurity, economic frustration and growing resentment toward perceived paternalism.

The message from the Sahel was unmistakable: France was no longer viewed as an indispensable partner.

What followed was not retreat but recalibration.

Macron’s high-profile outreach toward East Africa, particularly Kenya, reveals where France now sees opportunity. Nairobi has become more than just a diplomatic stop. It is increasingly viewed as a gateway into the economic future of Africa. The French-backed Africa Forward Summit in Kenya reflected that shift clearly, bringing together dozens of African leaders under the banner of innovation, energy, security and trade.

On paper, the agreements signed between Kenyan President William Ruto's administration and Paris sound ambitious and modern. Transport upgrades, digital cooperation, agricultural investment and blue economy projects all fit neatly into the language of 21st-century development. French corporate giants such as TotalEnergies, Bollore, Orange S.A., Vinci and Carrefour have all expanded their footprints across various African economies, operating in sectors ranging from oil and gas to logistics, telecommunications, retail and infrastructure.

Speaking of TotalEnergies, the company has turned our beloved Africa Cup of Nations into an overly commercialized spectacle, though that debate is perhaps one for another day.

To supporters, these investments represent development, jobs and modernization. But I believe critics are justified in asking whether something deeper is unfolding beneath the headlines.

As France loses strategic space along the Atlantic corridor, it appears to be repositioning itself along the Indian Ocean through East Africa’s more stable and economically promising states. Kenya’s location, infrastructure and regional influence make it an ideal partner for a country trying to maintain relevance on a continent where its old model is rapidly collapsing.

This is not unique to France. China has spent years embedding itself into African infrastructure through the Belt and Road Initiative, with companies such as Huawei and China Road and Bridge Corporation becoming deeply involved in telecommunications and transport projects. Russia has expanded security partnerships and military influence, while Türkiye has increased its diplomatic and commercial footprint through firms like Turkish Airlines and major construction groups active across the continent. Gulf states are investing heavily in ports and agriculture, while India and Brazil continue strengthening trade relations.

To me, Africa has become the center of a new geopolitical competition, not because of charity or sudden global goodwill, but because the continent represents the last major frontier of untapped markets, critical minerals, youthful populations and strategic positioning.

The uncomfortable reality is that Africa remains rich in resources but poor in value retention.

Take Zimbabwe as an example. The country exports vast amounts of globally sought-after natural resources such as gold, diamonds and lithium, while also sitting on Africa’s largest lithium reserves. Yet much of the real profit is captured elsewhere. The processing, branding, packaging and retailing are often controlled abroad, leaving African producers trapped at the lowest end of the value chain.

A Kenyan avocado may generate only a fraction of the wealth eventually earned from the final product sold in European or Asian supermarkets. The same pattern repeats itself across Africa with cocoa from Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire, cobalt from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and lithium from Southern Africa. Multinational corporations dominate much of the refining, shipping and branding process, ensuring that the highest profit margins are often realized far away from the mines and farms where the raw materials originate.

That is why I increasingly view the phrase "win-win partnership” with skepticism. Too often, the arrangement feels familiar: Africa exports raw wealth while importing finished products at higher costs.

Foreign investment is not inherently exploitative. In many cases, it brings desperately needed infrastructure, jobs, expertise and financing. The problem emerges when African states negotiate from positions of fragmentation and dependency rather than collective strength.

This is where the East African Community (EAC) faces one of its greatest tests.

The EAC was designed to build regional unity through shared markets, common policies and eventually deeper political integration. In theory, a united East Africa would negotiate with global powers from a position of leverage. In practice, however, member states frequently pursue separate bilateral deals that weaken collective bargaining power.

Competition between neighboring countries, overlapping regional memberships and differing national interests continue to slow integration. External powers understand this reality well. It is far easier to negotiate favorable terms with divided states than with a unified bloc speaking with one voice.

That dynamic resembles the oldest geopolitical strategy in history: divide and rule.

The larger question is whether Africa can finally break that cycle.

The continent holds extraordinary leverage. Africa possesses vast natural resources, strategic waterways and the world’s youngest population. By 2050, one in four people on Earth will be African. Yet demographic strength means little without economic coordination, industrial growth and strategic leadership.

What Africa lacks is not potential. In my view, it lacks unified negotiating power.

This is why calls for stronger African Union coordination and regional economic solidarity are becoming louder. I believe Africa’s future depends less on choosing between China, France, Russia or the West, and more on building internal systems capable of forcing equitable partnerships with all of them.

That means prioritizing value addition at home instead of endless raw exports. It means building local industries capable of processing African resources domestically. It means demanding technology transfer agreements rather than dependency contracts. It means protecting key strategic sectors while still welcoming investment.

Most importantly, it means African governments approaching foreign powers with long-term strategic confidence instead of short-term desperation.

The world is entering a multipolar era where power is increasingly fragmented. Every major player is pursuing its own interests aggressively. Africa cannot afford to remain the only side entering negotiations emotionally while others enter strategically.

The "new scramble for Africa” may not resemble the colonial conquest of the 19th century, but the battle for influence is undeniably real. The difference today is that African nations possess far more agency than they did during the colonial era.

Whether that agency is fully used may determine if this century becomes Africa’s great rise or simply another chapter where others grew rich from African potential while the continent itself remained on the margins.

The world is once again gathering around Africa. This time, the real test is whether Africa can finally gather around itself.