By Emmanuel Yashim
As rivalry between the U.S. and China intensifies, countries across the Global South face a strategic dilemma–how to benefit from both super powers without being trapped in their geopolitical tug-of-war.
Latin America’s three biggest economies–Brazil, Mexico, and Argentina–are showing that there is a middle path.
Their balancing act is instructive for Nigeria, which finds itself pulled between Chinese infrastructure financing and American influence in security, finance, and governance.
Nigerian foreign policy experts argue that the Latin American experience holds valuable lessons – not just for Nigeria’s diplomacy, but for how its partnerships can genuinely serve development.
President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has positioned Brazil as a bridge between the East and the West.
China is Brazil’s top trading partner, importing vast amounts of soybeans, beef, and iron ore while investing in infrastructure, technology, and renewable energy.
Earlier this year, Lula signed more than 30 cooperation agreements with Beijing, elevating ties to a “comprehensive strategic partnership.”
At the same time, Brazil maintains robust links with Washington; trade, defense cooperation, and regional security dialogues keep Brazil connected to the U.S., even as tensions flare over tariffs on steel and aluminum.
Lula’s balancing act allows Brazil to access both American capital and Chinese investment, and by presenting itself as a neutral bridge in global forums like BRICS and the G20, Brazil maximises its diplomatic leverage without alienating either side.
Mexico’s economy is deeply tied to the U.S, with nearly 80 per cent of exports heading north.
Washington’s industrial policies on autos, semiconductors, and supply chains directly shape Mexico’s growth.
Yet, Chinese capital has begun to seep into Mexican manufacturing, particularly in electronics and consumer goods.
This dual exposure has forced Mexico onto a delicate tightrope.
Earlier this month, it imposed 50 per cent tariffs on Chinese cars and raised duties on a range of Asian imports, moves that have been widely interpreted as appeasing U.S. concerns that cheap Chinese goods could enter its market through Mexico.
Still, Mexico has not closed its doors to Beijing; instead, it is recalibrating by defending its vital U.S. trade ties while leaving selective space for Chinese investment.
Exponents say the message is clear; Mexico will not jeopardise its biggest partner, but it refuses to ignore opportunities from the East.
Argentina’s libertarian president, Javier Milei, swept into office promising to tilt firmly toward Washington.
His government chose U.S.-made F-16 fighter jets over Chinese alternatives and sought closer ties with American financial institutions.
However, economic reality has proven less ideological as China remains a critical partner, buying Argentine soybeans, beef, and lithium while providing vital currency swap lines to ease dollar shortages.
In a bid to court more Chinese visitors and investment, Buenos Aires recently relaxed visa requirements for Chinese nationals.
The result is pragmatic balance: Milei’s anti-communist rhetoric coexists with quiet economic cooperation with Beijing. Argentina cannot afford to alienate China, no matter its political leanings.
Nigeria, like these Latin American giants, is wedged between the two superpowers.
Nigeria has a longstanding policy of avoiding alignment with any major power blocs, especially during and after the Cold War.
Instead, it has sought to pursue an independent, pragmatic foreign policy guided by its national interest, African solidarity, and the promotion of peace.
Rather than being drawn into this bipolar contest, Nigeria opted for a non-aligned approach, becoming an active member of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM).
This gave Nigeria flexibility to engage with both the East and the West, while championing the liberation of African states from colonialism and apartheid.
In its pursuit of “Balanced Diplomacy”, Nigeria maintains relations with the U.S., EU, Russia, and China without being fully tied to any.
For example, the U.S. provides military cooperation, education, and diaspora-driven investment to Nigeria, while China dominates Nigeria’s infrastructure landscape, financing railways, highways, and power projects as well as importing oil and agricultural products.
The question for Nigeria is not which partner to embrace, but how to manage both relationships so they serve national development.
Nigerian experts stress that this requires discipline, transparency, and strong institutions.
Joseph Olasunkanmi Tegbe, Director-General of the Nigeria-China Strategic Partnership (NCSP), provided some insights.
“China is not an enemy and neither is the U.S.
“The real challenge is that Nigeria has not learned to balance its diplomacy to draw the best from both.’’
Tegbe rejects argument that Nigeria’s relationship with China is exploitative. Instead, he urges Nigeria to emulate Beijing’s own model.
“China has built world-class infrastructure in record time. Nigeria must study that discipline and replicate it.
“We should not simply borrow, but learn from their approach to planning and execution,” he said.
Brazil’s careful balance provides a template: Nigeria must resist pressure to take sides, positioning itself as a neutral partner able to work with both Washington and Beijing.
However, borrowing, especially from China, is fraught with risk, according to experts.
Nigeria’s former Foreign Minister, Prof. Bolaji Akinyemi, warns that debt almost always comes with influence.
“Every loan has strings; creditors, whether China or the U.S., will always seek to protect their interests.
“Nigeria must have the discipline to manage debt responsibly, otherwise foreign lenders will dictate our policies,” Akinyemi said.
The former minister’s caution mirrors Argentina’s experience, which is that Chinese credit lines have provided breathing space but also deepened dependency.
For Nigeria, transparent loan agreements, predictable repayment schedules, and clear assessments of project viability are essential to prevent the erosion of sovereignty.
The structure of many foreign-financed projects is another concern. Chijioke Ekechukwu, former Director General of the Abuja Chamber of Commerce and Industry, argues that too many China-backed projects are designed to benefit China first.
“Most loans come tied to contracts awarded to Chinese firms.
“The profits return to Beijing, the jobs are filled by Chinese workers, and Nigeria is left with debt and limited local participation. That model is not sustainable,” he said.
Ekechukwu’s critique resonates with Mexico’s recent tariff strategy of safeguarding its domestic industries while maintaining space for engagement.
Nigeria, too, analysts argue, must demand local content provisions and ensure foreign-backed projects build value chains that employ its citizens.
Nigeria’s trade imbalance with China is glaring; while Beijing exports vast amounts of manufactured goods to Nigeria, Nigeria largely sends raw commodities in return.
Muda Yusuf, Chief Executive Officer of the Centre for the Promotion of Private Enterprise (CPPE), argues that the imbalance is unsustainable.
“The naira-yuan currency swap, for instance, has not moved the needle. It is useful for smoothing transactions, but trade will remain lopsided until Nigeria scales up its exports.
“We must diversify – from agriculture to manufactured goods – and meet global quality standards,” Yusuf said.
His perspective reflects Argentina’s reliance on a narrow set of exports.
For Nigeria, investing in value-added agriculture, processed goods, and industrial upgrades is vital if trade with China – and the U.S. – is to generate real growth.
Dr Tobi Oshodi, a political scientist at the Lagos State University, said that beyond trade and loans, institutional capacity determined the value of foreign partnerships.
“Partnerships are not inherently good or bad; what matters is how contracts are negotiated, how risks are managed, and how projects are monitored.
“Nigeria must adopt a knowledge-based approach, not just photo-op agreements,” he said.
For Oshodi, the lesson is clear: without strong institutions, even well-intentioned deals will collapse into debt or inefficiency.
This aligns with Brazil’s strategy of carefully negotiated partnerships and Mexico’s cautious balancing act.
From the foregoing analytical insights, five lessons stand out.
Firstly, balance is better than alignment; like Brazil, Nigeria needs to engage both Washington and Beijing, avoiding exclusive dependence.
Secondly, transparency is sovereignty. As Akinyemi warns, debt must be carefully managed to prevent external control.
Thirdly, local benefit must be guaranteed. Ekechukwu stresses the need for contracts that mandate Nigerian jobs, local suppliers, and technology transfer.
Fourthly, diversify or remain dependent. Yusuf insists that without export diversification, Nigeria will remain a consumer, not a competitor.
Fifthly, institutions matter most. Oshodi underscores that the strength of Nigeria’s institutions will decide whether partnerships empower or exploit.
Foreign policy advocates believe that for Nigeria, the goal is not to “choose” between Washington and Beijing, but to craft a strategy that draws from both without surrendering autonomy.
The U.S. offers technology, defense cooperation, and access to global capital markets while China brings infrastructure, financing, and a huge export market.
The challenge is to engage both on Nigerian terms.
Latin America shows it can be done– Nigeria now faces the same test; that is, to turn great-power rivalry into opportunity – not dependency
That, analysts say, requires disciplined borrowing, transparent governance, export diversification, and strong institutions.
(NANFeatures)
Post a Comment