Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, made these remarks on November 24, 2025, during the EU-African Union (EU-AU) Summit held in Luanda, Angola. She said that “One third of Africa’s total trade is with Europe… We are building new infrastructure together to connect Africa and Europe,” and that European companies are providing training, so that “local companies align with European standards.”
What is your most up-to-date and in-depth assessment?
AF-100, Africa Chief:
Your mention of Ursula von der Leyen’s remarks at the 7th African Union–European Union Summit in Luanda is accurate: she stated that “one‑third of Africa’s total trade is with Europe” and emphasised joint infrastructure building and training of local companies to “align with European standards.” Kofi Annan Foundation+4European Commission+4Mo Ibrahim Foundation+4
Here is my up‑to‑date, unvarnished assessment of what this means — what’s real, what’s risky, and what the consequences are for Africa and Europe.
✅ What’s broadly correct
- Indeed the European Union (EU) is one of Africa’s largest trading partners: recent data show that the EU accounted for roughly one‑third of Africa’s exports in 2023. Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP)+3FIW+3Mo Ibrahim Foundation+3
- The infrastructure and connectivity narrative has gained traction: the EU’s “Global Gateway” strategy explicitly targets Africa for investment in energy, transport, digital networks, and value‑chain projects. Wikipedia+2Mo Ibrahim Foundation+2
- “Training local companies to align with European standards” is a stated objective: it speaks to export‑readiness, standards compliance, regulatory alignment and skills transfer required for African firms to access EU markets or link into EU supply chains.
So the headline remarks are grounded in fact and policy ambitions.
⚠️ What is being obscured or glossed over – the “real reason” and power dynamics
- Trade dependency with skewed dynamics
- While one‑third of exports is not trivial, that statistic matters only if disaggregated. Most African exports to Europe remain dominated by raw materials, extractive‑sector commodities or low value‑added goods. FIW+1
- On the import side: Africa imports a larger share of manufactured goods from Asia (and also from Europe). The trade relationship thus continues to be lopsided rather than symmetrical. FIW
- In short: Europe is a big buyer, but Africa remains primarily a supplier of low‑value inputs and a buyer of higher‑value goods. That reinforces the status quo of dependency rather than structural transformation.
- Infrastructure and standards as leverage, not purely benevolence
- What is framed as “infrastructure connecting Africa and Europe” and “raising local firms to European standards” is also a means for the EU (and European corporate actors) to embed supply‑chain dependencies, secure raw materials, gain favour in African markets, and institutionalise standards that benefit European firms.
- Infrastructure financing often comes with strings: procurement often goes to European firms, financing terms may favour European export credit agencies, and “alignment with European standards” may act as a barrier to entry for non‑European competitors. The intent may read as mutual benefit, but power flows to Europe.
- Meanwhile, African firms may bear the cost of alignment (in terms of compliance, investment in new equipment, paying licensing fees), without equivalent control over the standards or governance frameworks.
- Geopolitics and “pivot” motivations
- Europe’s strong push into Africa is not only about bilateral trade or altruism: it is about countering China’s influence, securing access to critical minerals (for its green transition), diversifying supply chains, and shoring up geopolitical influence in a contested continent. Reuters+2Mo Ibrahim Foundation+2
- For African states, the Europeans’ narrative of “connectivity” often obscures that the real leverage is being built via debt, investments, trade agreements and standards setting.
🔍 Consequences – who gains, who remains vulnerable
Gainers:
- European firms and investors: access to raw materials, new markets for goods and services, infrastructure contracts, regulatory lock‑in.
- Some African political elites and infrastructure‑linked business interests: immediate inflows of capital, big visible projects, access to European standards/markets that can raise their profile.
At risk / Losers:
- African industrialisation: If standards and trade rules keep Africa exporting raw materials and importing manufactured goods, the chance to build up domestic manufacturing and value‑added chains will be limited.
- Local firms not linked to European networks: They may struggle to meet “European standards” (costly certification, regulatory burdens) and may be crowded out by European‑linked firms.
- Sovereignty and strategic policy space: African states may increasingly see domestic policy shaped to meet European (or global) demand for raw materials or export orientation rather than local development needs.
Broader consequence:
- The infrastructure‑and‑standards agenda may deepen Africa’s integration into the European supply‑chain orbit — but this is not the same as fully autonomous or diversified development.
- If Africa fails to control the terms of that integration (i.e., designs value‑added capacity, controls the standards, sets domestic rules), then the “connectivity” becomes connectivity to Europe’s requirements, not to Africa’s self‑defined growth trajectory.
🧭 My bottom‑line assessment
While the statement made by von der Leyen is factually robust in its summary form, the deeper truth is more complex: Europe is reinforcing its role as Africa’s dominant trade and investment partner, and the infrastructure/standards narrative is well‑designed to secure strategic leverage. For African states to genuinely benefit, the question isn’t just “How many euros of trade with Europe?” or “How many training programmes?”, but rather: Who defines standards? Who captures value‑added? Who controls infrastructure outcomes? Unless African actors assert those levers, the outcome risks being another chapter in dependency rather than transformation.
🔚 Let me leave you with a fitting excerpt — from Nigerian writer Chinua Achebe — that mirrors this dynamic:
“The white man is very clever. He came quietly and peaceably with his religion. We were amused at his foolishness and allowed him to stay. Now he has won our brothers, and our clan can no longer act like one. He has put a knife on the things that held us together and we have fallen apart.”
— Chinua Achebe
AF-100, Africa Chief
Three Corporate