Project by Projects

Are we positioned for strong negotiations?

Europe has just signalled a major pivot. My reading this morning was this speech by President von der Leyen at the EU Ambassadors Conference 2026, in Brussels. 

So many things mentioned stuck a lot of chords. Mainly she said the EU “can no longer be a custodian” of the old rules-based order and cannot rely on that system to shelter Europe from today’s threats. She called for a foreign policy that is more realistic and interest-driven, and openly questioned whether EU decision-making rules designed for a post-war era still serve Europe’s geopolitical credibility. Fair enough for EU sovereignty, yes?

My understanding of this is that moving forward, Europe in this repositioning from norms first to interest first means that values will increasingly be negotiated inside the deal rather than sitting above it. Small shift, but truly significant.  For Africa, this moment presents both risk and opportunity. 

• A risk if we show up fragmented, reactive, and grateful (sadly more likely currently). 
• An opportunity if we show up coherent, strategic, and contract-minded (there’s movement there).

In the full speech I wondered about a few things. 

What is the enforcement story for rules? If Europe says it will uphold the rules-based system, but in the same breath admits it can’t rely on it and must be pragmatic. Then we have to ask what happens when rules are violated by powerful allies, or when enforcement is inconvenient? This is a credibility gap that will shape trust (or lack of it) in conversations the ambassadors have with the countries they are stationed at. 

The narrative of a real need for security, but no guardrails. Yes, it is fair that today security considerations will increasingly sit inside trade, tech, infrastructure, and diplomacy. But it needs to be called out that this is not neutral. It often means conditionality, surveillance logic, and stability-first type partnerships. Especially in regions that are framed as migration/security theatres.

Africa is not treated more as a strategic stage/platform than a co-author. As the UN Secretary-General said during the AU summit, Africa must benefit from the resources of Africa—no more exploitation, no more plundering. Yet, the way that Africa is couched in this speech means we can potentially expect offers to come wrapped in investment, corridors, partnerships and more importantly in European leverage needs. Not treated as a co-designer of this new order or the world, but simply a recipient of deals. 

The world is becoming openly transactional, and we are now stepping into a bargaining world indeed. Countries are increasingly negotiating sovereignty through contracts on minerals, energy corridors, trade routes, migration cooperation, tech standards, and now data.

So as I am African, I ask the question:

If Europe is shifting into interest-driven realism, is Africa positioned to negotiate benefit-driven realism?

What this could mean for Africa in practice

Expect European asks to show up differently in four areas:

1. Critical minerals and value chains (who processes, where IP sits, where jobs land).
2. Energy and infrastructure corridors (who owns, who controls, who carries the risk).
3. Migration and security cooperation (often the quiet price inside other deals).
4. Digital standards and data (who captures value from African data flows and AI training).

If African States’ representatives enter these rooms without a coordinated position, the default outcome is predictable: extraction with better branding.

I saw the speech ended with “long live Europe” … I’m curious what our “Long Live Africa” posture might look like today.We must act right and moving forward, and stop treating engagements with the EU like aid, and begin treating it like the transaction that it is. A contract has terms, protections, obligations, penalties, and auditability. It is not a favour.

Here’s a small checklist; 

1. If the deal touches minerals, energy, logistics, or data—Africa must negotiate for:
   • Local processing/value addition
   • Skills transfer and domestic capability-building
   • Local procurement targets
   • Enforceable job and supplier development commitments
2. Don’t accept “we will report annually.” Require:
   • Public registries of major projects and procurement
   • Independent monitoring
   • Clear grievance and redress mechanisms for affected communities (This is where civil society and media become strategic assets, not outsiders.)
3. Data should be negotiated like a resource. If Africa’s minerals deserve fair value chains, so does Africa’s data. The same logic applies:
   • Where does value accrue, 
   • Who owns the IP, 
   • What benefit-sharing exists, and 
   • What protections exist when harms occur.
4. Don’t outsource your leverage. Build it. The EU negotiates as a bloc. Africa often negotiates as fragments. “Long live Africa” requires minimum agreement and coherence at least on:
   • Minerals processing terms
   • Data governance and AI standards
   • Debt and financing conditions
   • Civic space protections inside security cooperation

So to wrap up my thoughts on this. President von der Leyen’s message is essentially: the old world is gone; Europe will shape the new one through power, trade, and security realism.

This leaves Africa with at least a couple of options:

• remain a negotiation surface where others test their new doctrines, or
• become a negotiation actor that sets terms rooted in dignity, value capture, and intergenerational benefit.

If we want a “Long Live Africa” position, then this is the moment to practice it. Without apology, without over-explaining, and without mistaking access for advantage. Goodwill is no longer a strategy, but strong positioning is.

Long Live Africa. 

Still Listening. Still Learning

Yop Rwang Pam