Partnerships or Patronage? The Neo-Colonial Script the World Knows Too Well

By SOLOMON KIMANZI

Throughout history, nations have been quick to celebrate what appeared on the surface to be a plus in diplomacy and economic cooperation, only to find later that under the headlines something unimaginably sinister was being quietly negotiated. Such a debate has been ignited by the recent developments around French President Emmanuel Macron’s visit to Kenya. The nearly $27 billion partnership and investment pledges, the discussions around military cooperation and operational protections for foreign troops at the Coast all amid a growing public speculation of the strategic importance of the mineral rich Mrima Hills valued at $62B has led many Kenyans to revisit the warnings contained in Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins. Almost beside the point whether each rumour is true or not is to the more important question: how does a nation defend its sovereignty in an era where influence is not only wielded through colonization, but through economic dependency, strategic partnerships, debt, military pacts and elite alliances?

John Perkins painted a picture of a world where the powerful Western nations, institutions like the World Bank and multinational corporations no longer had to use their military muscle to exert influence over their resources and geopolitical interests. Rather, it was huge loans, infrastructure deals and political ties that became the new tools of empire. 

Leaders of developing countries in the global south were often promised financial benefits, international legitimacy and political survival if they opened their economies and strategic assets to foreign interests. The result was a system in which countries seemed independent on paper, but their economic orientation was increasingly dictated by external powers.

Many post-colonial nations faced the tragedy of attaining formal independence while remaining trapped within global systems that continued to drain wealth outward. In many cases, the building of roads, railways, ports, pipelines and military installations was done in ways that primarily served external strategic interests rather than local economic transformation. Citizens were encouraged to celebrate modernization while still being shut out of any real ownership of their own resources.

Decades ago, Kwame Nkrumah warned us that the greatest threat to African countries after independence would not necessarily come from military occupation, but from foreign economic control exercised by local political elites. The flags would stay African. National anthems would still be played. Elections would take place. But key decisions on resources, debt and economic priorities would increasingly serve foreigners, not Africans themselves. Many dismissed his warnings then but history, across Africa and Latin America, time and again proved that sovereignty can be slowly eroded without firing a single bullet.

The rise of Mobutu Sese Seko in the DRC was the most obvious example of how a resource-rich country can remain poor while foreign powers and the politically connected elites get fabulously rich. Congo has huge reserves of cobalt, copper, gold, diamonds and coltan, minerals that fuel industries around the world. But even with this immense wealth, millions of Congolese were left in poverty, with multinational interests and political networks benefiting from extraction deals. It is evident that foreign governments have continued to support compliant leadership structures, including the manipulation of elections to ensure that Western economic and political interests are protected.

This historical context explains the scepticism many Kenyans have when large financial pledges, military cooperation arrangements and interest in strategic mineral zones emerge at the same time. There have been concerns over the alleged mineral potential of Mrima Hills, particularly rare earth minerals and other precious deposits – with history showing that strategic resources often attract geopolitical competition under a veneer of partnership. The larger principle at stake is more important than whether each circulating claim is true: citizens have a right to ask who ultimately benefits from major international arrangements tied to security, infrastructure and natural resources.

Kenya therefore stands at a critical crossroads. The country can engage globally while still fiercely protecting its sovereignty and national interest. Citizens should not reject every foreign deal automatically, but neither should they abandon critical thinking in exchange for impressive headline figures and diplomatic photo opportunities. Real patriotism lies not in unquestioning applause for leaders and foreign dignitaries, but rather demanding transparency about what is being signed, who benefits, what protections exist for national resources, and whether future generations will inherit ownership or dependency.