By Peter Grear, with AI assistance
May 13, 2026
Africa is once again at the center of global competition.
But, unlike the colonial scramble of the 19th century, today’s contest is not being fought primarily through territorial conquest. It is unfolding through trade agreements, infrastructure financing, mineral access, logistics corridors, digital systems, energy supply chains, and geopolitical influence.
This is the New Scramble for Africa.
The continent’s strategic importance has surged as the global order shifts toward multipolarity. The United States, China, the European Union, Russia, India, Turkey, Gulf states, and multinational corporations are all deepening their engagement with Africa. The reasons are increasingly clear: Africa possesses critical minerals essential to the green economy, one of the world’s youngest populations, rapidly expanding urban markets, and a growing continental trade framework through AfCFTA.
In short, Africa is becoming too important to ignore.
The deeper question, however, is not whether Africa will rise. It is who will benefit from that rise.
Historically, Africa’s resources fueled external industrialization while much of the continent remained structurally dependent. Colonial systems extracted raw materials while limiting African ownership, industrialization, and control over value chains. Even after independence, many African economies remained tied to export models that shipped wealth outward rather than building internal industrial strength.
Today, many fear that the same pattern could repeat itself under modern branding.
The global race for lithium, cobalt, copper, manganese, rare earth minerals, and strategic infrastructure increasingly resembles a modernized extraction contest. Foreign companies secure contracts. External financing shapes infrastructure priorities. Global powers compete for access to ports, logistics corridors, and energy partnerships. Africa risks remaining the source of raw inputs while others capture most downstream profits.
This is where the concept of Right of First Refusal (RoFR) enters the conversation.
RoFR, as increasingly discussed within Pan-African economic circles, is not simply about who submits the first bid. In its broader strategic interpretation, it refers to giving African and diaspora entities the first right to match or exceed external offers before opportunities are awarded elsewhere.
That distinction matters.
Without structured mechanisms, African and diaspora firms often compete at a permanent disadvantage against larger external corporations with deeper capital reserves, longer institutional histories, and stronger financing networks. Even when Africa’s markets expand, local participation can remain marginal unless systems are intentionally designed to create entry points.
RoFR attempts to change the starting position.
Rather than excluding outside participation, it seeks to create “home court advantage” for African and diaspora stakeholders. In practical terms, this could apply to procurement, infrastructure projects, industrial partnerships, resource processing, logistics, and strategic development initiatives.
Supporters argue that without such frameworks, Africa’s rise could still leave Africans with limited ownership of the wealth being generated.
The stakes are especially high because of the changing global economy.
The transition toward renewable energy has dramatically increased demand for critical minerals concentrated in Africa. Electric vehicles, battery storage systems, defense technologies, and AI infrastructure all rely on resources the continent possesses in abundance. At the same time, AfCFTA is creating the framework for a 1.4-billion-person market that could transform Africa into one of the world’s largest integrated economic zones.
This combination—resources, demographics, and market scale—makes Africa one of the central geopolitical arenas of the century.
Yet market growth alone does not guarantee sovereignty.
That is why RoFR increasingly intersects with broader conversations about industrialization and economic strategy. If African countries continue exporting raw materials without building processing capacity, manufacturing ecosystems, or supplier networks, the continent risks remaining trapped at the bottom of the value chain.
RoFR is seen by some advocates as one tool for changing that outcome.
By prioritizing African and diaspora participation, RoFR frameworks could help build local industries, encourage skills transfer, and expand ownership pathways over time. Instead of merely extracting resources, Africa could develop ecosystems around refining, manufacturing, logistics, and innovation.
The African diaspora also becomes central to this vision.
For decades, diaspora engagement with Africa often focused on remittances, tourism, and symbolic connection. RoFR reframes the diaspora as a strategic economic constituency—one capable of contributing capital, expertise, entrepreneurship, media influence, and procurement participation.
This operationalizes the African Union’s concept of the Sixth Region.
Instead of viewing the diaspora mainly through cultural identity, RoFR treats diaspora communities as part of Africa’s broader economic infrastructure. Diaspora professionals could participate in contracts, supply chains, technology development, workforce initiatives, and investment ecosystems connected to Africa’s growth.
Still, RoFR is not without criticism.
Skeptics warn that poorly designed systems could lead to corruption, elite capture, inefficiency, or politically connected monopolies. If transparency mechanisms are weak, preferential frameworks could become tools for exclusion rather than empowerment.
These concerns are legitimate.
For RoFR to succeed, governance matters. Competitive standards matter. Capacity-building matters. Youth workforce development matters. Transparent procurement systems matter. Otherwise, the framework risks becoming symbolic rather than transformative.
Yet, despite these risks, the larger historical significance remains.
The original Scramble for Africa largely excluded Africans from controlling the systems that governed extraction, trade, and industrialization. The modern scramble risks reproducing similar outcomes economically rather than territorially.
RoFR emerges from a growing belief that Africa’s rise should not automatically default into another cycle of external dependency.
At its core, the debate is about economic sovereignty.
If Africa becomes one of the defining growth centers of the 21st century, who sits first in line to participate? External corporations alone? Or Africans and the diaspora as well?
That question may shape the next chapter of Pan-African economic strategy.
And in the age of the New Scramble for Africa, the answer could determine whether the continent’s rise finally translates into lasting African ownership and power.
Donate to GDN – Greater Diversity News | Subscribe – Greater Diversity News
Join the conversation—leave your take or a question.
Help grow The Economic Liberation of Africa conversation—forward to someone curious about Africa-centered opportunity.