> In a word, yes. These are some of the most unstable countries in modern history. Then you also need to secure the cables going north from Africa.
They are indeed unstable - for reasons that may not be discussed - but buying the required sites and securing them should be possible anyways. If local jobs are created in the process, even better. So much effort has been wasted on partially securing much more dangerous countries like Afghanistan and Irak with questionable lasting benefit and apparently low strategic gain.
> Take the Suez canal risk and multiply it with 1000.
A very good point. One pipe obviously isn't enough and one shouldn't push too large objects through it without a capable plumber around.
> Then we also have China currently being busy colonizing Africa...
Aren't the Chinese endavours mostly directed at farming and some mining for now? OK, they may also try to develop some industry, but how well Chinese business culture meshes with the African population's culture remains to be seen.
Also, just because a competitor is doing something one shouldn't do it? If everybody had always followed this rule, the USA would now maybe be called "North Mexico" because the Spanish sailed some ships there, first. I am not saying colonization is a good idea, much better arrangements could be made today.
