Abstract
This study examines the strategic competition between the United States (US), China and Russia in Africa by applying four major international relations (IR) theories: realism, liberalism, constructivism and critical theory. Africa has become an increasingly significant geopolitical arena where major powers pursue security objectives, economic interests, diplomatic influence and access to strategic resources. Rich deposits of critical minerals, expanding markets, growing political influence in multilateral organisations, and strategic geographical positioning have elevated Africa’s importance within contemporary international politics. Although the US, China and Russia employ different instruments of foreign policy, each seeks to expand its influence while responding to the activities of the others. The study argues that this competition cannot be adequately explained by a single theoretical perspective. Instead, an integrated theoretical framework is required to capture the interaction between power politics, economic cooperation, normative influence and structural inequality.
The research follows a qualitative, explanatory design based on documentary analysis of primary and secondary sources, including government policy documents, official strategies, academic literature and reports published by international organisations. The analysis identifies the strategic interests of the three powers and evaluates the explanatory contribution of realism, liberalism, constructivism and critical theory. Key concepts, including anarchy, self-help, relative power, balance of power, economic interdependence, identity, norms and structural inequality, provide the analytical framework for interpreting strategic competition.
The study conceptualises strategic interests as the long-term priorities that guide foreign policy in pursuit of national security, economic prosperity, political influence and international status. Unlike short-term policy objectives, strategic interests are relatively stable and shaped by historical experience, geography, institutional capacity and ideological orientation. They frequently overlap, but also generate competition where access to resources, markets, military facilities or diplomatic influence is contested. Strategic competition therefore represents an ongoing process through which states employ military, economic, diplomatic and ideological instruments to protect or strengthen their relative position within the international system.
Africa has consequently emerged as an important arena of geopolitical rivalry. The continent’s reserves of critical minerals essential for advanced manufacturing and renewable technologies, together with expanding markets and increasing diplomatic influence, make it strategically valuable to all three powers. While their methods differ, each seeks to strengthen long-term influence through a combination of security, economic and political engagement.
The US approaches Africa through a strategy that combines security cooperation, economic engagement and diplomatic partnerships. Contemporary US policy places particular emphasis on counter-terrorism, military cooperation, access to critical mineral supply chains and strategic competition with China and Russia. Institutions such as AFRICOM remain central to military cooperation and capacity building, while programmes such as AGOA and infrastructure initiatives support commercial and strategic objectives. Recent policy developments indicate a more transactional approach in which national security and economic interests increasingly reinforce one another. Although this strategy enhances American strategic influence, it also raises questions regarding the balance between military engagement, development assistance and multilateral diplomacy.
China pursues a broader and more integrated strategy that combines infrastructure development, trade, investment, diplomatic engagement and expanding security cooperation. Through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (Focac) China has become Africa’s largest trading partner and one of its principal infrastructure investors. Official policy emphasises sovereignty, non-interference and mutually beneficial development while integrating resource acquisition, infrastructure construction, technological cooperation and peacekeeping into a comprehensive long-term strategy. Chinese engagement extends beyond economics to include educational exchanges, diplomatic partnerships, digital infrastructure and growing security commitments. Collectively, these initiatives support China’s broader objective of strengthening its global influence within an increasingly multipolar international order.
Russia’s engagement differs from both the US and Chinese approaches by concentrating primarily on military cooperation, security partnerships, diplomatic expansion and resource diplomacy. Building on historical ties established during the Cold War, Russia promotes principles of sovereignty, anti-colonial solidarity and resistance to Western dominance. Arms sales, military training, private military companies and resources-for-security arrangements have become central instruments for expanding Russian influence, particularly in politically unstable states. Although Russia’s economic presence remains comparatively limited, its strategic use of military cooperation enables it to exercise influence that exceeds its economic capacity, while strengthening diplomatic support within multilateral institutions.
The study evaluates these strategies through four complementary IR theories. Realism provides the principal explanation for strategic competition by portraying the international system as anarchic and characterised by the absence of a central authority capable of enforcing rules among sovereign states. Under these conditions, states operate within a self-help system in which survival and security remain primary objectives. Consequently, they seek to maximise relative power, strengthen military capabilities and develop strategic partnerships. Concepts such as balance of power, relative gains and the security dilemma explain why cooperation is often constrained despite shared interests. The behaviour of the US, China and Russia in Africa reflects these assumptions as each power competes for strategic resources, political influence and favourable geopolitical positions while responding to the activities of rivals.
Liberalism complements realism by demonstrating that international cooperation remains possible despite anarchy. International organisations, economic interdependence and institutional arrangements reduce uncertainty, facilitate information exchange and encourage mutually beneficial cooperation. From this perspective, trade, investment, development assistance and multilateral engagement represent important mechanisms through which states pursue both national interests and collective gains. American development programmes, Chinese infrastructure investment and participation in multilateral institutions illustrate that strategic rivalry frequently coexists with cooperation rather than replacing it. Liberalism, therefore, explains dimensions of great-power interaction that realism alone cannot adequately capture.
Constructivism further broadens the analysis by emphasising that state interests are shaped not only by material capabilities but also by identities, norms and shared meanings. Strategic competition therefore extends beyond military and economic capabilities to include competing narratives regarding development, governance, sovereignty and international order. The US often frames its engagement in terms of democratic governance and rules-based cooperation; China promotes narratives of mutual development and non-interference; while Russia emphasises anti-colonial solidarity and strategic autonomy. These competing identities influence how African states interpret external engagement and contribute to the legitimacy of competing foreign policy strategies.
Critical theory provides a broader structural perspective by questioning the historical and economic foundations of the contemporary international order. Rather than viewing international politics as a neutral arena, it examines how unequal power relations, dependency and historical patterns of domination continue to shape relationships between developed and developing states. Strategic competition may create opportunities for infrastructure development, investment and security cooperation, yet it may also reinforce structural inequalities through unequal economic relationships, resource extraction and political dependence. Critical theory, therefore, encourages evaluation of whether external engagement strengthens Africa’s long-term strategic autonomy or reproduces existing forms of dependency.
The comparative analysis demonstrates that each theoretical tradition explains different dimensions of strategic competition. Realism most effectively explains military rivalry, geopolitical competition and the pursuit of strategic resources. Liberalism highlights the continuing importance of trade, institutions and economic interdependence despite geopolitical rivalry. Constructivism explains how identities, norms and political narratives influence foreign policy and international legitimacy. Critical theory reveals the structural inequalities and historical power relations embedded within external engagement. Rather than being competing explanations, these perspectives provide complementary analytical insights into the complex dynamics of contemporary great-power competition.
The study concludes that strategic competition in Africa is a multidimensional phenomenon shaped simultaneously by material power, institutional cooperation, normative contestation and structural inequality. Although realism provides the strongest overall explanation because security, influence and access to strategic resources remain the dominant drivers of state behaviour, it cannot fully account for the complexity of contemporary international politics. Liberalism contributes important insights into institutional cooperation and economic interdependence. Constructivism highlights the influence of identities and norms. Critical theory exposes enduring structural inequalities within the international system. Together, these theoretical traditions provide a comprehensive analytical framework for understanding the evolving strategic competition between the US, China and Russia in Africa and its implications for the continent’s development, strategic autonomy and role within an increasingly multipolar international order.
Keywords: Africa; China; great-power competition; international relations; liberalism; realism; Russia; strategic competition; United States (US)
- This article’s featured image was created by Lara Jameson and obtained from Pexels.
Lees die volledige artikel in Afrikaans
Strategiese mededinging tussen die VSA, China en Rusland in Afrika: ’n teoretiese ontleding