Africa's most influential leaders are assembling in Addis Ababa this weekend for their yearly summit, confronting a rapidly shifting global landscape that threatens to marginalize the continent's collective interests. The timing couldn't be more critical, as fundamental changes in international relations force African nations to reconsider their diplomatic and economic strategies with unprecedented urgency.
The stark reality of this new era was crystallized by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney at the Davos forum last month. His metaphor was brutally clear: in tomorrow's world, nations will either have a seat at the decision-making table or find themselves on the menu, consumed by more powerful actors. For African leaders who have spent decades advocating for genuine inclusion in global governance, this warning resonates with particular intensity. Yet the path to securing that seat has become increasingly treacherous as traditional allies recalibrate their priorities.
The Erosion of Multilateralism
The acceleration of great-power politics under Donald Trump's second presidency has fundamentally altered the rules of engagement. The White House's revised national security framework explicitly states that universal attention to all regions is unsustainable and unrealistic. This strategic recalibration prioritizes the Western hemisphere and Middle East, inevitably diminishing America's focus on African affairs and creating a vacuum that other powers may fill on their own terms.
This shift represents more than a temporary policy adjustment—it signals a systematic retreat from the multilateral principles that have governed international relations since World War II. For smaller and developing nations, this transformation is particularly alarming. Institutions like the United Nations, World Bank, and World Trade Organization, which once provided some measure of protective norms and predictable financing, are losing their influence as bilateral deal-making supersedes collective frameworks. The result is a more transactional world where raw power matters more than diplomatic protocol.
From Biden's Promises to Trump's Pragmatism
The contrast with recent American policy could hardly be more dramatic. Just over three years ago, President Joe Biden stood before African leaders in Washington and declared the United States "all-in on Africa's future." The accompanying strategy document framed sub-Saharan Africa as "critical to advancing our global priorities," suggesting a deep and lasting partnership.
Critics, however, noted the persistent disconnect between rhetoric and reality. Biden's sole visit to sub-Saharan Africa—brief stops in Cape Verde and Angola—came in the final month of his presidency, suggesting limited genuine engagement despite the lofty language. Now, Trump's "America First" doctrine has replaced Biden's aspirational tone with cold pragmatism that leaves little room for sentimental attachments to historical partnerships.
The current National Security Strategy's three paragraphs on Africa reveal this new mindset: partner with "select countries" to reduce conflict, establish "mutually beneficial trade relationships," and transition from aid to investment. The message is unambiguous: value will be measured in concrete returns, not diplomatic goodwill or developmental charity. This represents a fundamental reimagining of how America engages with the continent.
The Bilateral Trap
This approach opens the door to a proliferation of individual agreements that systematically undermine Africa's negotiating power. Washington's menu of tempting bilateral deals—particularly concerning minerals and natural resources—tempts individual nations to break ranks from continental solidarity. Each country that signs separately weakens the possibility of collective bargaining that could secure better terms for all and ensures that benefits flow more equitably across the continent.
Tighisti Amare, who directs the Africa program at Chatham House, warns that without a cohesive common strategy, African nations risk being "left behind" entirely. The danger isn't merely reduced influence—it's structural exclusion from the economic arrangements shaping the 21st century. When powerful nations negotiate one-on-one with smaller states, the power imbalance inevitably produces lopsided outcomes that favor the stronger party's immediate interests over sustainable development.
The continent's vast deposits of lithium, cobalt, and rare earth elements—essential for renewable energy, electronics, and defense technologies—make it a prime target for such deals. Yet without coordination, African governments may find themselves competing against each other to offer the most favorable terms, effectively racing to the bottom while foreign corporations and governments reap the windfall.
The Realist Perspective
Some observers view this shift as a necessary correction to naive idealism that promised more than it could deliver. Peter Pham, who served as Trump's special envoy to Africa during his first term, argues the new approach is more honest about underlying power dynamics. Trained in the realist school of international relations, Pham sees Trump's strategy as acknowledging truths that previous administrations obscured: national interests drive foreign policy, and not all regions can be equal priorities in a competitive global environment.
This realism, however honest, presents Africa with difficult choices that require clear-eyed assessment of the continent's position. The 54 African nations must decide whether to maintain the illusion of equal partnership with declining Western commitment, or to forge new alliances while building internal strength through deeper economic and political integration. The status quo is no longer viable, but the alternatives demand unprecedented coordination.
The Urgency of Unity
The African Union's summit this weekend represents a pivotal moment that will test the continent's resolve. Leaders must move beyond aspirational statements about African solidarity and create actionable mechanisms for collective negotiation on trade, security, and development. This requires institutional reforms that empower the AU to speak with one voice and enforce common positions when dealing with external partners.
The stakes extend far beyond diplomatic niceties. With global demand for Africa's critical minerals surging, the continent sits on resources that grant it potential leverage in international markets. But this leverage only materializes if African nations refuse to be picked off individually and instead present a united front. The African Continental Free Trade Area provides a foundation, but it needs political will at the highest levels to become a tool for external negotiations.
Navigating a Fragmented World
The emerging global order resembles less a coordinated international community than a competitive marketplace where might makes right and collective rules are optional. For African countries, this means developing sophisticated strategies that balance short-term national needs against long-term continental interests—a delicate calculation that requires foresight and discipline.
Some nations may be tempted to accept immediate bilateral offers, securing quick financing for infrastructure or military support that addresses pressing domestic challenges. Yet each such deal reduces the pressure on global powers to engage with Africa as an equal partner and sets a precedent that undermines collective efforts. The continent's future prosperity depends on resisting this fragmentation, even when individual incentives seem attractive.
This challenge is compounded by the emergence of other external actors—China, Russia, Gulf states—each offering their own bilateral arrangements. While diversification of partnerships is strategically wise, it becomes dangerous when it further fractures African unity. The key is coordinating these relationships through a continental framework that maximizes collective benefit.
Conclusion: A Defining Moment
As the Addis Ababa summit unfolds, Africa stands at a historical crossroads that will shape its trajectory for decades. The old multilateral order, however imperfect, offered some protection for smaller nations and a voice in global governance. The emerging system demands strength and unity as prerequisites for participation rather than charity or special consideration.
The question posed by Carney's metaphor—table or menu—is not merely rhetorical. It describes a real choice facing African leaders today. Those who build collective institutions, enforce common positions, and refuse to be divided will secure seats at the table where decisions about global resources, finance, and security are made. Those who don't may find their nations consumed piecemeal in deals they have little power to shape or contest.
The continent's response to this challenge will determine not just its economic future, but its very sovereignty in a world where only the unified survive and fragmented actors become dependent variables in other nations' strategic calculations. The time for decisive action is now, before the window of opportunity closes and the menu is set.