China-Africa cybersecurity collaboration: Structural vulnerabilities in digital governance and colonial-era tech debt fuel transnational fraud networks
Original framing: “China and Africa boost law enforcement ties in crackdown on cross-border cybercrime” — South China Morning Post
The current cybercrime crisis is deeply rooted in the legacy of colonial borders and neocolonial economic structures, which fragmented African markets and created porous digital spaces for fraud. For example, the 2018 Huawei-Zambia deal, which embedded Chinese surveillance infrastructure into Zambia’s governance, set a precedent for how tech dependency can enable state-sponsored cybercrime. Similarly, the 1990s IMF structural adjustment programs in Africa gutted local industries, leaving room for Chinese state-owned enterprises to dominate digital infrastructure—now exploited for fraud. The narrative ignores how these historical patterns repeat themselves, with China playing the role of the new colonial power by offering 'security' in exchange for access to African data and markets.
The China-Africa cybersecurity collaboration is not merely about fighting cybercrime but is deeply embedded in the structural vulnerabilities created by colonial borders, neocolonial economic dependency, and the unchecked expansion of Chinese tech firms into African markets.
Historical precedents like the Huawei-Zambia deal reveal how tech dependency enables state-sponsored surveillance and financial exploitation, while marginalised voices in Africa—such as cybersecurity activists and fintech workers—have long warned about the dangers of this model. The narrative’s focus on law enforcement obscures the systemic failures of digital governance, including weak regulatory frameworks, financial exclusion, and the absence of culturally relevant solutions. Cross-culturally, models like Japan’s 'J-Secure' or indigenous communal governance systems offer alternatives that prioritize collective responsibility over punitive enforcement. To break this cycle, Africa must diversify its tech partnerships, empower local digital governance, and integrate marginalised perspectives into policy-making. Without addressing these structural issues, the 'crackdown' risks deepening dependency and failing to address the root causes of cybercrime—ultimately leaving African digital sovereignty in the hands of external actors.