A prevalent quantitative school of geopolitical analysis relies narrowly on urbanisation rates, industrial output and military scale to argue that China is mathematically destined to achieve global primacy.
Such a framework oversimplifies layered geopolitical and developmental dynamics while ignoring a wide range of mitigating variables.
Rooted in an African and Global South developmental lens, this commentary conducts a cold, evidence-based dissection of the three core pillars underpinning the “inevitable Chinese global dominance” thesis.
It delineates tangible boundaries to China’s industrial, developmental and defence capabilities, maps the evolving landscape of Sino-African critical mineral cooperation amid great-power supply chain competition, outlines actionable medium-to-long term development strategies for African states, and defines the autonomous agency of the Global South within a shifting multipolar order.
This analysis weighs both opportunities and risks emerging from the ongoing global power transition.
Three pillars of the global primacy thesis: A balanced critical review
Pillar 1: Modernisation growth potential – Scope for expansion amid shrinking demographic dividends
- New perspectives: How Zimbabwe can effectively fight money laundering
- New perspectives: How Zimbabwe can effectively fight money laundering
- Why loss and damage is such a sticking issue at COP27
- The curse of imported knowledge, investment models
Keep Reading
Proponents of deterministic power projection rest their case on outdated metrics: a 62.7% urbanisation rate, agricultural employment accounting for 24.7% of the workforce, and tertiary education attainment of 16.1% among the wider population.
These figures are framed as proof of untapped modernisation momentum.
Official 2025 year-end statistics reveal significant obsolescence in this dataset.
China’s permanent resident urbanisation rate hit 67.89%, comfortably exceeding the 14th Five-Year Plan target of 65%. Agricultural employment slid to 21.68%, nearly converging with the global average of 22.17%.
The 16.1% tertiary enrolment figure applies exclusively to young labour cohorts, not the full population aged over 25.
While a material development gap between China and advanced industrialised economies persists, sustaining moderate upward growth remains feasible.
Reliance on structural gaps alone to extrapolate long-term global supremacy is nevertheless flawed.
Industrial restructuring and demographic shifts are steadily compressing remaining growth dividends, and structural disparities cannot reliably predict enduring geopolitical advantages.
Pillar 2: Integrated industrial ecosystem – A durable structural competitive edge
The industrial metrics cited to back the primacy argument hold substantial empirical weight.
China’s manufacturing value-added output stands at 71.7% of the combined total of the United States, Europe and Japan; its electricity generation hits 117.9% of that aggregate; crude steel output reaches 294.7%; and annual industrial robot installations register at 157.6%.
2024 official production data reinforces this industrial scale advantage.
China’s manufacturing value-added totalled approximately $4.66 trillion, representing 27.25% of global manufacturing output and surpassing the combined manufacturing value of the US, Germany and Japan.
Its crude steel output reached 1.02 billion tonnes, accounting for 54% of global production and more than ten times America’s domestic steel volume.
Annual industrial robot installations totalled 295 000 units, capturing 54% of global deployments and doubling the combined installations of the EU and the US.
National power generation exceeded 10,000 TWh, outstripping the combined electricity output of the US, EU and India.
Among the three pillars, industrial capacity delivers the most robust evidence.
China’s strength lies not merely in sheer production volume, but a fully integrated, vertically complete industrial ecosystem that delivers sustained structural advantages for defence manufacturing, cross-border infrastructure delivery and large-scale technological commercialisation.
Pillar 3: Regional defensive military capacity – Defensive posture overshadows exclusionary geopolitical claims
Some analysts extrapolate sweeping regional hegemony from two observations: US expenditure of ballistic missile interceptors during regional conflicts, and China’s long-range strike coverage of all US military installations across the Indo-Pacific.
The conclusion that China could fully evict US military presence from Asia represents substantial overreach.
During the June 2025 Iran-Israel conflict, US forces expended 100 to 150 THAAD interceptors, depleting a notable share of available stockpiles.
However, claims that half of America’s interceptor inventory was exhausted while Iran retained 70% of its missile arsenal originate solely from Iranian state sources and lack independent cross-verification, rendering them unsuitable for broad geopolitical extrapolation.
From a hardware perspective, all forward-deployed US bases in Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and Guam fall within the range of China’s ballistic, cruise and hypersonic missile fleets.
The DF-17 hypersonic vehicle exceeds Mach 10, rendering conventional interception architectures largely ineffective.
Multiple Western think tank simulations confirm Chinese long-range strike assets could suppress US forward operating sites within a narrow window in the event of regional hostilities.
This technical reality does not support the extreme claim of full US military expulsion from Asia.
China’s suite of long-range strike systems serves sovereign territorial and offshore security requirements, forming a defensive military posture.
The Indo-Pacific remains anchored by long-standing alliance frameworks, global power projection capabilities and mutual nuclear deterrence mechanisms, creating a balanced security order where no single power can unilaterally exclude all rival military presence.
Furthermore, the scale, context and strategic stakes of limited Iranian missile exchanges bear no meaningful parallel to potential US-China confrontation in Asia, invalidating direct cross-case analogy.
The real landscape of critical mineral partnerships between Africa and China’s industrial supply chains
Reducing Africa to a raw mineral exporter feeding China’s rare earth and critical mineral processing base captures only surface-level dynamics, ignoring the mutually complementary, continuously evolving nature of bilateral collaboration.
Structural global mineral division of labour
First, global mineral processing capacity is geographically concentrated. China controls nearly 70% of global rare earth separation capacity, manufactures 93% of high-strength rare earth permanent magnets, and undertakes 95% of heavy rare earth downstream refinement, supplying processed mineral materials for global new energy, advanced manufacturing and defence sectors.
Second, Africa functions as the world’s primary reservoir of energy transition minerals.
The US Geological Survey identifies 50 minerals as strategically vital to national security, 32 of which hold commercially viable reserves across Africa.
In 2024, over 80% of China’s cobalt and manganese ore imports originated from African territories, while Chinese mining operators account for more than 60% of bauxite extraction in Guinea.
This creates a cross-continental division of labour linking upstream African mineral reserves to downstream Chinese processing capacity.
Third, Belt and Road Initiative infrastructure facilitates two-way commercial circulation.
Transcontinental railways, port terminals and cross-border power grids connect inland African mining zones to global trade hubs, exemplified by the Tazara Railway linking Zambia and Tanzania.
These assets stabilise raw material supply chains for Chinese industry while drastically cutting logistics costs for African mineral exporters, stimulating local employment and cross-border trade without functioning as one-sided instruments of resource control.
A Paradigm shift in Sino-African economic cooperation: Moving beyond raw resource extraction
In 2025, China eliminated all import tariffs on goods originating from 53 African nations, establishing a tariff-free trade corridor for value-added African manufactured goods.
This policy marks a definitive break from the early era of cooperation centred exclusively on raw mineral extraction and primary commodity exports.
It actively incentivises Africa’s industrial upgrading by creating market access for locally processed outputs, fostering a balanced two-way trading cycle.
Parallel development of alternative western supply chains
The United States and its allies have accelerated the construction of rival critical mineral logistics networks, with the Lobito Corridor railway – linking Zambia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Angola’s Atlantic ports – serving as a flagship infrastructure project.
While this initiative strengthens Western supply chain resilience, it simultaneously upgrades Africa’s transnational transport connectivity and expands market access for landlocked economies.
For African states, concurrent investment streams from multiple external stakeholders diversify development options and avoid rigid binary framing of competing infrastructure blocs.
Six phased Strategic pathways for Africa and the Global South to build strategic autonomy
African economies remain trapped in structural disadvantages: overreliance on unprocessed raw mineral exports, shallow domestic industrial capacity and over-dependence on single external markets.
Reliance on ad-hoc concessions from great powers cannot deliver long-term sustainable development.
Drawing on China’s industrialisation experience and tailored to Africa’s mineral endowments and regional integration agenda, six tiered policy frameworks can be implemented without wholesale replication of advanced industrial economy institutions.
- Climb global value chains to escape raw commodity lock-in
Africa holds abundant reserves of cobalt, lithium, graphite, nickel, copper and rare earth minerals, yet domestic smelting and downstream refining sectors remain severely underdeveloped, capturing only marginal economic rents from resource extraction.
National governments must embed binding local processing clauses within resource development agreements during foreign investment negotiations, rejecting extraction-only contracts that generate no domestic industrial spillover. Localised refining capacity ensures mineral value retention within national borders.
- Pursue balanced, diversified diplomatic hedging
US-China relations exist within a complex matrix of competition, collaboration and coexistence, rather than pure zero-sum rivalry. Both powers maintain overlapping shared interests across climate governance, food security and global public health.
Great-power competition nevertheless creates diplomatic manoeuvre space for the Global South, as both sides retain incentives to offer technology and infrastructure cooperation to expand their international partnerships.
African states should uphold three guiding principles: sustain normal diplomatic ties with all major economies; negotiate differentiated infrastructure and technology transfer packages; and reject exclusive alliance commitments that erode long-term bargaining leverage.
- Leverage the AfCFTA to advance continental integration
Individual African nations lack sufficient economic scale to negotiate on equal footing with major global powers. The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) provides the institutional foundation for collective bargaining strength.
Harmonised continental standards for critical mineral exploitation, mandatory local processing quotas and technology transfer requirements amplify negotiating power far beyond fragmented national negotiating positions.
Industrialising economies with limited manufacturing capacity should prioritise regional industrial specialisation to close production gaps before introducing stringent resource export restrictions.
- Mandate technology transfer and local equity stakes in foreign investment deals
China’s development model offers replicable lessons: infrastructure-led development, export-oriented industrialisation and staged technological upgrading.
African governments should codify standardised mandatory provisions within all mineral and infrastructure investment contracts: domestic smelting and refining capacity construction, long-term comprehensive technology transfer frameworks, joint venture shareholding for indigenous African enterprises, and dual-purpose infrastructure serving both domestic livelihoods and export trade.
- Develop domestic downstream mineral processing ecosystems
International Energy Agency analysis confirms African nations seek to maximise economic returns from indigenous mineral reserves through localised processing.
Mineral smelting and purification are energy-intensive activities requiring coordinated investment in power infrastructure, skilled labour training and stable industrial regulatory frameworks.
China’s full-spectrum rare earth processing ecosystem serves as a viable developmental template, which African states may adapt to match their unique mineral resource portfolios rather than replicate verbatim.
- Expand a diversified portfolio of international partners
China stands as Africa’s primary partner in mineral development and infrastructure delivery, yet it is not the sole source of external investment.
Capital from the US, EU, Middle East and Southeast Asia continues to target African resource and construction sectors. Multilateral investor competition improves contractual terms for host nations.
Governments should maintain an open, inclusive stance toward all external capital sources, avoiding overreliance on a single bilateral partner to mitigate systemic supply and economic risks.
Geopolitical analysis predicated purely on industrial, demographic and military quantitative metrics fails to validate claims of inevitable Chinese global primacy.
China’s integrated industrial ecosystem delivers enduring structural advantages, moderate room for upgrading remains amid ongoing urbanisation, and regional defensive military capabilities have advanced materially – all backed by verifiable empirical evidence.
Even so, framing such trends as a mathematical guarantee of global hegemony represents an unsubstantiated overstatement.
Aggregate national strength cannot be mechanically translated into global hegemonic authority.
Demographic shifts, domestic economic transition pressures, multi-lateral balancing coalitions and pluralised global governance demands constitute long-term soft variables that quantitative modelling cannot fully capture.
China adheres consistently to a path of peaceful development, advocates for multipolarity and democratised international relations, and disavows pursuit of global hegemony or exclusive regional dominance.
Its international cooperation framework is anchored in mutual benefit and win-win outcomes.
For African and Global South states, the current era of global power transition constitutes a narrow but valuable strategic window.
Sustainable development hinges not on securing short-term preferential treatment by aligning with a single great power, but on seizing multipolarity’s opportunities to build self-sufficient industrial capacity, deepen continental integration and cultivate a diversified network of international partnerships to forge genuinely equitable long-term cooperation frameworks.
The window of concurrent great-power outreach to developing nations will not remain open indefinitely.
States that capitalise on this period to solidify domestic processing industries, consolidate collective continental bargaining power and diversify external partnerships will retain agency over their developmental trajectories within the emerging international order.
Economies locked into a cycle of raw mineral export and singular bilateral alignment will remain confined to peripheral positions within global value chains, unable to shape their own long-term growth pathways.
No single state or bloc possesses unilateral authority to dictate global outcomes within a multipolar system.
Africa’s vast strategic mineral reserves, large youthful population and untapped consumer market endow the Global South with substantial collective structural power.
Only through upholding strategic autonomy, deepening South-South coordination and embedding robust domestic industrial and institutional frameworks can developing nations secure equitable representation and developmental opportunities within reformed global governance architecture.
- Saxon Zvina is the principal consultant at Skyworld Consultancy Services and a member of the Belt Road Initiative Think Tank.
- Email: [email protected]. X : @saxonzvina2
