Agoa on a contested continent in a changing geopolitical world

As South Africa and the US co-hosted the Agoa Forum in Johannesburg this week, the private sector and social partners focused on its reauthorisation and renewal. Delegates raised concerns about the need for beneficiary reviews to be expanded to at least five annually. This would offer more policy certainty to the private sector.

Some called for Agoa to be made permanent. Its trade benefits were lauded and the need to synchronise it with the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) was emphasised. However, Agoa’s reach as a US foreign policy instrument was not touched on, even with US President Joe Biden recently withdrawing beneficiary status to some West African countries due to coups in violation of the trade framework's laws.

The forum takes place within a fractious geopolitical and geoeconomic environment, with Africa caught up in big-power politics. South Africa has not been spared, having experienced Agoa's reach as a foreign policy stick after misunderstandings with the US regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

It is notable that the global geopolitical environment has become murkier, unpredictable and riskier since Agoa was renewed by former US president Barack Obama in 2015

There is no doubt the forum, while supposedly a trade and investment event, has a geopolitical and geoeconomic flavour as it takes place in an increasingly unpredictable, highly contested and fractious world. This is compounded by Agoa being a key instrument in the projection of US economic and diplomatic power in Africa. US scholars have long asserted that trade policy is national security policy.

The global geopolitical environment has become murkier, more unpredictable and riskier since Agoa was renewed by former US president Barack Obama in 2015. The geopolitical environment has been strained by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the weakening of the World Trade Organisation and the general rise of big-power politics. Africa has re-emerged as a theatre for big-power rivalry, with the resurgence of coups in West Africa reflecting the insidious involvement of big powers.

While South Africa’s and the continent’s interests in Agoa may be purely commercial, they cannot escape the arrangement’s non-trade dimensions.

Agoa as a US foreign policy instrument and the South African conundrum

A key non-trade feature of Agoa is preventing beneficiary countries from engaging in activities that undermine the national security or foreign policy interests of the US. While South Africa does fulfil most of the act's criteria due to its robust democratic and constitutional culture, it is these provisions, specifically South Africa’s stance on the Russia-Ukraine conflict, that has engendered concern within the US as to whether it should retain its beneficiary status.

The requirement for beneficiaries to operate within US foreign policy interests is benign for smaller countries. However, it is tricky for a country such as South Africa, a key diplomatic player in regional and global matters. Where US and South African foreign policy interests diverge, the Agoa implication is that the former’s national interests must take precedence. This has given rise to tensions on such issues as Ukraine and the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Africa within geopolitical and economic storms

Since Agoa’s inception in 2000, various countries have had their beneficiary status revoked and reinstated. Mostly, these revocations concerned human rights violations and rule of law prescripts. However, the last couple of years have seen African countries being removed because of political instability. As alluded to earlier, since the last review and renewal by Obama, the world has undergone significant shifts, characterised by rising polarisation and fragmentation of the global governance framework.

Agoa in big-power politics

Africa, particularly the Sub-Saharan region, has not been spared this fragmentation and big-power politics. Instead, the continent has had to contend with multiple overtures as various global powers seek to exert influence on it. Africa has found itself being courted and pulled in different directions by big powers. This has at best manifested through summitry diplomacy with global players such as China, India, Russia and Japan having Africa summits.

Agoa and a shrinking democratic space in West Africa

Besides South Africa, where Agoa’s foreign policy stance was tested because of the country’s divergent view with the US, it is in West Africa where the framework’s realist intentions have been undermined, mostly through coups largely associated with Russia's forays into the region. It is the re-emergence of Russia in Africa, sometimes fronted by the Wagner Group, such as in the Central African Republic (CAR), that has had some beneficiaries dropping their commitments regarding the rule of law, democratisation and human rights.

A number of countries have in the past couple of years had their beneficiary status withdrawn due to coups, including Burkina Faso, Mali, Guinea, Gabon and Niger. The common thread is Moscow, and if one adds the CAR, a true picture emerges of Russa’s growing influence in Agoa’s sphere of influence. The coups have taken a direct anti-West tone, further demonstrating the contested nature of Sub-Saharan Africa. Even Uganda, whose withdrawal relates to disrespect for LGBTQIA rights, has recently adopted such a posture, taking an openly pro-Moscow stance on Ukraine. It is noteworthy that Ethiopia (whose status has been withdrawn and is under review) is a key US military ally but is politically and economically in China's embrace.

One can posit that it is in the best interests of large economies and geopolitical players such as South Africa to push for the replacement of the act with a more reciprocal free trade agreement

Beyond Agoa

The forum took place as calls grow in the African trade policy community that Agoa be replaced by a reciprocal agreement between the US and Africa. It is not clear if such an agreement can be concluded through the AfCFTA. Negotiations for a US-Kenya free trade area have been taking place for some time. One can posit that it is in the best interests of large economies and geopolitical players such as South Africa to push for the replacement of the act with a more reciprocal free trade agreement.

What may be debatable is whether this would be between the US and individual states or with the continent through the AfCFTA. To “level” the playing field, a free trade agreement between the US and Africa would be advisable. Less developed African countries could then be accommodated through a preferential system that protects them from larger economies.

Reshoring and friend shoring

However, US strategists may not be keen for a reciprocal agreement as Agoa is a key foreign policy tool. The act offers the US a soft and hard instrument to exert and maintain influence on an increasingly contested continent. What is clear is that the world that birthed Agoa is completely different from the one in which the US and Africa are now trying to chart new trade, geopolitical and geoeconomic paths.

The best option for the US may be to see Africa as a partner and include the continent in its value chains through reshoring and friend shoring. This would sustainably integrate the US and African economies. There is no better time than now to do it, when the US has started to decouple and derisk from China.

• Langalanga is a foreign policy fellow at the Helen Suzman Foundation