The United States is stepping up efforts to become Africa’s key energy partner, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz said this week, urging closer cooperation between Washington and African nations to unlock the continent’s energy potential through private investment and what American officials describe as transparent commercial diplomacy.
Speaking at the African Energy Week conference in Cape Town, which ran from September 29 to October 3, Cruz said the U.S. must act as a “strong and committed partner” to Africa, describing the continent as a strategic ally and an emerging powerhouse for global energy. “Africa is a strategic partner,” he said. “The U.S. is Africa’s partnership alternative to communist China, and we’re here today to create that robust alternative.”
Cruz drew parallels between Texas, his home state, and Africa, noting how energy development had transformed the U.S. economy. “As a Texan, I understand the immense benefit that comes with being blessed with abundant resources,” he said. “Texas is rightly known as the energy capital of the world. I believe the United States should be a strong and committed partner in Africa’s energy future.”
His comments come as Washington seeks to strengthen commercial ties with African producers amid competition from China and Gulf nations. While Beijing has spent two decades building energy and infrastructure partnerships across Africa, U.S. officials are increasingly promoting private investment and what they describe as mutually beneficial cooperation. “Together the U.S. and Africa can secure a safer, freer and more prosperous energy future,” Cruz declared.
But here’s the challenge Washington faces: China’s approach has emphasized government backed infrastructure financing and long term relationships that don’t always demand the governance reforms or transparency standards that American partnerships typically require. African governments deciding between potential partners often weigh immediate infrastructure needs against longer term concerns about debt sustainability and political strings attached to financing deals.
Senior U.S. Department of Energy officials outlined a broader strategy to boost investor confidence and increase American engagement in African energy markets. “Energy addition is a priority for the DOE, and nowhere can it be more impactful than here in Africa,” said Andrew Rapp, Senior Advisor at the DOE. “This is our goal as an agency and it has support from the highest levels of the administration.”
Josh Volz, the DOE’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Europe, Eurasia, Africa and the Middle East, said the U.S. respects African countries’ right to decide their energy paths. “International governments should not stand in the way of how African nations determine their energy futures,” he said. “We are eager to hear how best we can, from a U.S. perspective, partner with Africa.”
Volz added that the U.S. private sector has already invested around $65 billion across the continent, backed by a $2.5 billion financing pledge made under the Trump administration to support African energy expansion. That investment figure sounds substantial, but it’s worth contextualizing against China’s cumulative infrastructure spending in Africa, which some estimates place above $150 billion over the past two decades.
The U.S. push focuses heavily on natural gas and LPG as drivers of energy access and economic growth. Earlier this year, U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright reaffirmed Washington’s commitment to supporting African energy independence and expanding clean cooking solutions. “Africa needs massively more energy. Africans will do that. Africans will deliver that. The United States is thrilled to partner with you in that endeavor,” Wright said at the Powering Africa Summit in March.
American companies are leading some of Africa’s largest energy projects. In March, EXIM approved a $4.7 billion loan for the Mozambique LNG project, expected to produce 13.1 million tonnes per annum of liquefied natural gas. ExxonMobil plans to invest $1.5 billion in Nigeria’s Usan deepwater oil field and is targeting a final investment decision on the $30 billion Rovuma LNG project in Mozambique by 2026.
Meanwhile, Kosmos Energy remains a key investor in West Africa’s gas sector, with stakes in the $4.8 billion Greater Tortue Ahmeyim LNG project offshore Mauritania and Senegal, projected to produce up to 5 MTPA, and ongoing exploration in Equatorial Guinea. These projects represent the kind of large scale, technically complex investments that American energy companies excel at, bringing not just capital but also expertise in offshore production and LNG technology.
Washington’s renewed engagement marks what officials describe as a shift toward investment led diplomacy, seeking to balance China’s influence and build lasting partnerships based on trade, technology, and trust. Whether that framing resonates with African governments depends partly on whether American companies can match Chinese speed and flexibility in moving from agreements to actual project implementation.
The emphasis on natural gas reflects both America’s own energy abundance and a pragmatic recognition of Africa’s energy poverty. Over 600 million Africans lack access to electricity, and hundreds of millions more rely on biomass for cooking, with serious health consequences. Natural gas offers a pathway to rapid electrification and cleaner household energy, though it also raises questions about long term climate commitments and whether gas infrastructure will become stranded assets as renewable energy costs continue declining.
Cruz’s framing of the U.S. as an “alternative to communist China” signals that Washington views African energy engagement through a geopolitical lens as much as an economic one. That perspective may resonate in some African capitals concerned about Chinese influence, but it also risks reducing complex development partnerships to great power competition rather than focusing on what African countries themselves need and want.
What African nations actually seek from energy partnerships includes reliable financing for projects, technology transfer that builds local capacity, transparent terms that don’t create unsustainable debt burdens, respect for national sovereignty in energy decision making, and genuine commitment to projects that improve energy access for ordinary citizens rather than just extracting resources for export.
American energy companies bring advantages in technology, operational excellence, and environmental standards. They also bring higher expectations around governance, anti corruption measures, and regulatory frameworks, which can slow project timelines compared to Chinese competitors willing to work within existing institutional structures, however flawed.
The $2.5 billion financing pledge mentioned by Volz represents a fraction of what African energy development actually requires. The International Energy Agency estimates that achieving universal energy access in sub Saharan Africa by 2030 would require annual investments of around $25 billion. So while American engagement is welcome, the financing commitments announced so far don’t yet match the scale of the challenge.
For countries like Ghana, Nigeria, and Mozambique with substantial natural gas reserves, American partnerships offer potential benefits: access to LNG technology and global markets, capital for expensive offshore development, expertise in complex project management. But they also raise questions about how much of that gas should serve domestic energy needs versus export markets, and whether gas development will crowd out investment in renewable energy that might better serve long term goals.
The African Energy Week conference itself reflects the continent’s push to be taken seriously as an energy producer and partner rather than just a recipient of aid or charity. African nations increasingly want relationships where they negotiate from positions of strength, leveraging competition among potential partners to secure better terms rather than accepting whatever is offered.
Cruz’s comments about “changing the paradigm” through “investment led commercial diplomacy” suggest Washington recognizes that old models of development assistance and political conditionality don’t work as well when African countries have alternatives. Whether that recognition translates to partnerships African nations find genuinely attractive remains to be seen.
What’s clear is that energy will be central to U.S. Africa relations for years to come, driven by African countries’ enormous energy needs, the continent’s substantial oil and gas reserves, America’s own energy abundance and export capacity, and competition with China for influence and commercial opportunities. The question isn’t whether these partnerships will develop, but on what terms, and whether they’ll genuinely serve African development priorities or primarily advance American geopolitical and commercial interests.
Source: newsghana.com.gh
