David,

KingJaja,

I don't dispute your remarks and my knowledge of Africa does not include knowledge of trade.

Now three decades ago I recall a conservative South African journalist remarking that sub-Saharan Africa had been written off by the West except for natural resources. It is hard now to disagree.

As for the French I know not. I would have expected after the Ivory Coast debacle that many expat French nationals calculation about life in Africa changed; were there not 50k French nationals living there IIRC.
The two most important French colonies in West Africa are Ivory Coast & Senegal. I call them colonies because the relationship between France and Francophone Africa would be unthinkable in the Anglophone world.

But I need to add that trade was the driving factor for colonization & the Scramble for Africa. Trade has ALWAYS been central to the West's relationship with Africa - and we need to understand it from that foundation.

It was the oil palm of the Niger Delta (which fed the British Industrial Revolution - used as soaps, lubricants for machinery) that led to the Royal Niger Company which eventually led to the colony of Nigeria.

It is a pity that the US got to Africa in a big way when ideology, not trade was the major policy issue in Africa. (Carter spent half of America's aid budget to Africa on Mobutu - topic for another day).

For France & Britain (Shell in Nigeria), trade has always been the primary focus.

I think US finds it difficult to deal with China in Africa because this is not a battle of ideology, this has to do with trade - and US cannot compete with China on trade in Africa.

A common accusation leveled against the Chinese is this: "the benefits of Chinese trade aren't trickling down". To which the Chinese can very easily respond: "show us the benefits of US trade"? And truth is, there are next to none.