[FREE] Western Aid Retreat Opens Door for Authoritarian Powers in Resource-Rich Africa
Intelligence Explainers | Ujasusi Blog Originals
🔓FREE ACCESS
Please consider becoming a paid subscriber
You can also donate.
Rising anti-foreigner sentiment across Western democracies is translating directly into unprecedented foreign aid cuts, with global ODA falling 7.1% in 2024 and projected to decline a further 9-17% in 2025—potentially the largest drop on record. This retreat creates a strategic vacuum that authoritarian powers—China, Russia, and Gulf states—are positioned to fill in resource-rich but poorly governed nations. These alternative partners offer capital without governance conditions, a proposition increasingly attractive to elites prioritising regime survival over citizen welfare.
📊 What evidence shows anti-foreigner sentiment rising in Western nations?
Polling data across Western democracies reveals a marked hardening of attitudes towards immigration, with direct implications for foreign policy and development assistance.
European Union sentiment has shifted decisively. A March 2024 Euronews/Ipsos poll of approximately 26,000 respondents across 18 EU states found that 51% of Europeans hold negative views of the EU’s migration policy, with only 16% positive. The most critical populations include France (62% negative), Austria (60%), and Hungary (58%). Support for stronger border controls reaches 91% amongst nationalist voters and 81% amongst centre-right EPP voters.
In the United Kingdom, YouGov polling shows 63% believe immigration has been “too high” over the past decade, whilst 45% would support admitting no new migrants and requiring recent arrivals to leave. Immigration became the top issue at 38% in October 2024—the highest since the Brexit referendum in 2016.
American attitudes have shifted particularly sharply. The Chicago Council on Global Affairs found that 51% want to cut federal spending on economic aid to other countries (up from 41% in 2020), whilst 50% favour cutting military aid (up from 42% in 2022). A February 2025 YouGov poll found 46% believe the US spends “too much” on foreign aid, with only 11% saying “too little.” Critically, 73% of Republicans favour decreasing US aid, compared to 33% of Democrats.
Electoral results confirm these attitudinal shifts translate into political power. Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) secured 20.8% in the February 2025 federal election, more than doubling from 10.3% in 2021 to become Germany’s second-largest party. France’s Rassemblement National achieved 33.15% in the first round of the 2024 legislative elections—the party’s best-ever result. In the UK, Reform UK captured 14.3% of the vote (over 4 million votes) in July 2024, the strongest performance by a challenger party in British electoral history. Austria’s Freedom Party (FPÖ) won first place in September 2024 with 28.8%—the first time a far-right party has topped an Austrian federal election.
💰 How severely are Western donors cutting foreign aid?
The contraction in Western development assistance represents a historic shift with potentially devastating consequences for aid-dependent nations.
Global Official Development Assistance (ODA) fell 7.1% in real terms in 2024—the first decline after five consecutive years of growth—reaching $212.1 billion according to OECD Development Assistance Committee data. The OECD projects a further 9-17% drop in 2025, which would constitute the largest single-year decline on record.
For the first time in nearly 30 years, the four largest Western donors—the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and France—all cut ODA simultaneously in 2024. If announced 2025 cuts proceed, it will mark the first time in history all four have reduced aid for two consecutive years.
The United Kingdom’s cuts are particularly severe. The February 2025 announcement reduced aid from 0.5% to 0.3% of GNI by 2027—a historically low level—to fund defence spending increases. International Development Minister Anneliese Dodds resigned over the decision, with Baroness Chapman describing 0.3% as the “new normal.” Africa-specific allocations face a 12% cut to £1.37 billion in 2025/26, whilst MENA receives 21% less.
United States aid cuts are the most dramatic in scale. Following the January 2025 Executive Order on “Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid,” Secretary Rubio terminated approximately 92% of USAID grants—claimed savings of $60 billion. USAID has been reduced from 10,000 employees to approximately 15 working under State Department supervision. The FY2026 budget proposal slashes international programmes to $31 billion (a 47% cut), with a further $20 billion rescission of previously approved funds—representing an 84% reduction in net new spending. Proposed eliminations include $6.2 billion for global health, $3.2 billion for humanitarian aid, and $1.6 billion for food assistance.
Sub-Saharan Africa faces the steepest declines. The OECD projects countries in the region could face a 16-28% decline in bilateral ODA, whilst least developed countries may see 13-25% reductions. Health funding could drop by up to 60% from its 2022 peak. By 2027, ODA is projected to fall back to 2020 levels, erasing half a decade of progress.
🇨🇳 How are China, Russia, and Gulf states filling the vacuum?
As Western donors retreat, authoritarian powers are expanding engagement with resource-rich African nations through aid, investment, and security partnerships—critically, without the governance conditionalities that characterise Western assistance.
China’s engagement operates at massive scale. Between 2000 and 2023, Chinese development finance institutions extended 1,306 loans totalling $182.28 billion to 49 African governments and 7 regional institutions, according to Boston University’s Global Development Policy Center. At the September 2024 FOCAC Summit in Beijing—attended by 51 African heads of state—China pledged $51 billion over three years, including $10 billion for investment, $10.7 billion in aid, and $30 billion in credit lines.
The critical distinction lies in conditionality. China operates under its “Eight Principles of Aid” established in the 1960s, emphasising “no conditions or privileges attached” and “no interference in internal affairs.” President Xi Jinping explicitly stated at FOCAC 2024: “There will be no interference in African countries’ internal affairs.” This stands in stark contrast to Western donors who require democratic governance, human rights standards, and anti-corruption measures.
Russian engagement prioritises military and security partnerships. Russia supplies 21-24% of African major arms imports, making it the continent’s leading weapons supplier according to SIPRI. The Africa Corps (successor to Wagner Group) maintains active deployments in at least six countries: Central African Republic, Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Libya, and Sudan. At the 2023 Russia-Africa Summit, Putin announced $23 billion in African debt forgiveness and pledged grain shipments to food-insecure nations. Russia explicitly courts military juntas and governments expelled from regional bodies—providing security to the CAR’s Touadéra regime since 2018 and supporting Sahel juntas following recent coups.
Gulf state investment has surged dramatically. The UAE announced $97 billion in African investments in 2022-23 alone—nearly triple China’s commitments for the same period. DP World operates 15+ port assets across Africa, with a planned $3 billion in new port infrastructure over five years. Saudi Arabia pledged $41 billion over the next decade at the October 2024 “New Africa Summit,” including $25 billion in private investment and $10 billion in EXIM financing. Qatar has pledged over $103 billion across six African countries through Al Mansour Holdings.
As the African Business publication notes: “Unlike Western institutions like the World Bank and IMF, which impose bureaucratic conditions, the UAE delivers high-standard projects quickly.” This speed and flexibility—combined with absence of governance requirements—makes Gulf capital particularly attractive to regimes facing Western pressure.
🇹🇿 What does Tanzania’s situation reveal about this dynamic?
Tanzania exemplifies the trajectory threatening resource-rich but poorly governed nations. The country possesses substantial natural wealth—57 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves valued at $30-42 billion in a pending LNG project, plus 60 tonnes of gold production in 2024 (Africa’s fourth-largest). Yet governance has deteriorated sharply, creating conditions where authoritarian alternative partners become increasingly attractive to ruling elites.
Freedom House downgraded Tanzania from “Partly Free” to “Not Free” in 2025, citing a wave of enforced disappearances, opposition persecution, and electoral manipulation. In the November 2024 local elections, the ruling CCM won over 98% of contested seats amidst credible fraud allegations. Opposition leader Tundu Lissu was charged with treason (a non-bailable offence) in April 2025, whilst opposition figure Ali Mohamed Kibao was found dead with acid burns following abduction in September 2024. Over 375 Chadema opposition members were arrested in August 2024 alone.
Chinese investment in Tanzania has reached $11.4 billion across 1,274 registered projects, creating an estimated 149,759 jobs. Major Chinese-led infrastructure includes the 2,201 km Standard Gauge Railway network (approximately $7.6 billion in contracts), the $1.4 billion TAZARA Railway rehabilitation under a 30-year Chinese concession, and the potentially revived $10 billion Bagamoyo Port project. The controversial Bagamoyo project was suspended by former President Magufuli, who called Chinese terms “exploitative”—including a 99-year lease and restrictions on Tanzania developing competing ports. President Hassan has signalled willingness to resume negotiations.
Despite resource wealth and foreign investment, approximately 40% of Tanzanians (26.8 million people) live in extreme poverty on less than $2.15 per day. Inequality has worsened, with the Gini coefficient rising from 37.8 in 2011 to 40.5 in 2018. As Freedom House observes: “Most Tanzanians do not benefit from the country’s extensive natural-resource wealth.”
The Journal of Democracy warned in November 2025: “Tanzania is in flames... The protests broke out in response to the government’s attempt to strong arm the country’s national election. In the run-up to the vote, incumbent president Samia Suluhu Hassan had her two principal opponents excluded from the ballot.”
👥 How severe is Africa’s youth unemployment crisis?
Africa’s demographic trajectory represents perhaps the most consequential challenge facing the continent. The numbers are stark: 10-12 million young Africans enter the labour force annually, whilst only approximately 3 million jobs are created—a gap that widens each year.
The International Labour Organisation projects that Africa’s youth labour force will grow by 76 million by 2050, requiring 72.6 million additional jobs for young Africans over the next decade. By 2050, one in three young people globally will be African. Five of the eight countries accounting for the majority of global population growth are African: DRC, Egypt, Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Tanzania.
Informal employment dominates. In Tanzania, informality surged from 92.5% in 2020/21 to 94.6% in 2024. Across Africa, over 80% of young workers are in informal employment, lacking job security, social protection, or advancement opportunities.
The brain drain compounds the crisis. The African Union estimates 70,000 skilled professionals emigrate annually, representing $184,000 in economic loss per migrating professional. Nigeria alone has 78,000+ citizens on UK work visas (2023) and 6,770+ doctors practising in the UK NHS—leaving a domestic doctor-patient ratio of 1:5,000 against the WHO-recommended 1:600. The Mo Ibrahim Foundation estimates annual losses of $2 billion from health sector brain drain alone.
Youth-led protests have erupted across the continent. Kenya’s 2024 protests against tax hikes and unemployment saw young people make up 80% of demonstrators. Nigeria’s EndSARS movement, Senegal’s 2021-2024 protests, and instability preceding coups in Burkina Faso all reflect youth frustration with governance failures and stolen futures.
⚡ Does the resource curse apply to nations like Tanzania?
The resource curse—whereby natural resource wealth correlates with poor development outcomes—finds substantial support in African data.
Africa holds 30% of global mineral reserves, 12% of oil, and 8% of natural gas. The continent produces 73% of global cobalt (predominantly DRC), 65% of manganese (mainly South Africa), 44% of diamonds, and 40% of gold. Yet resource wealth has not translated into prosperity. A World Bank analysis found that oil-exporting African countries performed no better than non-commodity exporters during the 2004-2014 commodity boom.
The Democratic Republic of Congo illustrates the paradox. Despite holding 50% of global cobalt reserves and 25% of diamond reserves, the DRC ranks 149th on the Human Development Index with a score of 0.574 (Low Human Development). Extreme poverty remains widespread despite hundreds of billions in extractable wealth.
Illicit financial flows drain resources from national development. The African Union’s Thabo Mbeki panel estimated that Africa loses $50 billion annually to tax evasion and illicit outflows—with 50-year losses exceeding $1 trillion. The Panama Papers and Pandora Papers revealed extensive offshore holdings by African elites, including the Kenyatta family’s $30+ million in offshore foundations and eight shell companies across Panama and the British Virgin Islands.
Academic research confirms the mechanisms. A 2016 study found that mining in Africa increases corruption by 33% in surrounding areas. The correlation between “corruption, rule of law problems, bad regulation” and natural resource rents is well-established in the literature.
Tanzania maintains EITI (Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative) membership with “Moderate” validation, though the organisation has placed the country under enhanced scrutiny. Despite transparency frameworks, governance remains the weakest area in World Bank assessments, with accountability of executive and legal/judicial systems rated particularly poorly.
🔮 What do experts predict for nations caught in this dynamic?
Think tank analysis paints a concerning picture for the intersection of Western retreat and authoritarian advance.
Chatham House warned in March 2025: “The West’s retreat from aid will leave an obvious opening for revisionist powers to build further influence in developing countries. China continues to signal investment commitments in Africa... Emergency programmes are already in disarray, whilst in the long term, revisionist powers like China will seize chances to build influence.”
The OECD’s June 2025 policy brief projects that by 2027, ODA could fall back to 2020 levels, noting with concern that major donors cutting simultaneously is unprecedented. OECD DAC Chair Carsten Staur stated: “It’s even more concerning that some of the major donors have signalled further, and quite significant, decreases over the coming years.”
Brookings Institution analyst Yun Sun warns of geopolitical risks: “Whilst Africa could benefit from the geopolitical competition between U.S. and China, it will require African countries to be particularly diligent and vigilant over the calculus, risks, and potential retaliations in the event that one of the great powers adopts a punitive approach.”
The Mo Ibrahim Foundation’s 2024 governance assessment found that after four years of stagnation, Africa’s overall governance progress “ground to a halt in 2022.” More than 60% of Africans now live in countries where key democratic norms have deteriorated, whilst four in ten Africans live where rule of law has worsened. Founder Mo Ibrahim noted: “Escalating conflicts and deepening mistrust in democratic institutions and values are not specific to Africa; we see it right around the world. But it is specifically concerning in Africa because it threatens our progress in economic and social development.”
The Carnegie Endowment offers a more nuanced perspective, suggesting some experts argue “this is the time for aid-recipient countries to reduce aid dependency and build more autonomous control over their own health and education systems and wider policies.” However, for nations with weak institutions and elite capture, reduced Western engagement may simply accelerate authoritarian consolidation.
📈 Key statistics summary
The evidence substantially supports the thesis that anti-foreigner sentiment is translating into reduced Western aid, creating opportunities for authoritarian powers in resource-rich, poorly governed nations.
The trajectory for nations like Tanzania appears concerning. Young populations see limited economic opportunity despite abundant resources. Elites have access to unconditional capital from authoritarian powers willing to overlook governance failures. Western pressure for democratic accountability is diminishing alongside development assistance. The combination suggests continued elite enrichment at the expense of citizen welfare, with growing youth frustration creating conditions for instability.
Strategic Assessment
The evidence confirms a structural shift in the geopolitics of development finance. Anti-foreigner sentiment in Western democracies has produced electoral victories for nationalist parties and translated into historic aid cuts—with the US, UK, Germany, and France all reducing ODA simultaneously for the first time in three decades. This retreat creates strategic opportunities for China, Russia, and Gulf states, whose “no strings attached” engagement model appeals to regimes prioritising survival over accountability.
Tanzania’s trajectory—declining governance scores, opposition persecution, and deepening authoritarian control despite resource wealth—illustrates the risks. The country’s $11.4 billion in Chinese investment and potential revival of the $10 billion Bagamoyo Port project proceed alongside Freedom House’s downgrade to “Not Free” status and evidence of elite capture of resource revenues.
The demographic arithmetic is unforgiving: 10-12 million young Africans entering the labour force annually against 3 million jobs created, with 40% poverty rates despite resource abundance. Without fundamental changes in governance and revenue distribution, the thesis that resource-rich, poorly governed nations face bleak futures appears well-supported by current evidence.
The question is whether alternative development models—including Africa’s own agency in selecting partners and terms—can deliver better outcomes than the conditional Western model, or whether the absence of external pressure for accountability will simply accelerate elite extraction at citizens’ expense.
Sources & Further Reading:
Development Finance Data: OECD Official Development Assistance 2024 | OECD Cuts in ODA Report | UK Aid Reduction Analysis
Public Opinion: Euronews EU Migration Poll | YouGov UK Immigration | Chicago Council US Aid
Alternative Partnerships: Russia Arms to Africa (SIPRI) | UAE Africa Investment | Brookings US-China Africa
Tanzania Governance: Freedom House Tanzania 2025 | Amnesty Tundu Lissu | HRW Election Arrests
Youth & Demographics: Africa’s Youthquake Analysis | Tanzania Labour Survey | ACET Demographic Dividend
Expert Analysis: Chatham House Western Aid Retreat | Mo Ibrahim Governance 2024 | Journal of Democracy Tanzania
All links verified working as of December 13, 2025.