<div style="display: block; position: relative; max-width: 640px;">
<div style="padding-top: 56.25%;"><iframe style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute; top: 0px; bottom: 0px; right: 0px; left: 0px;" src="//players.brightcove.net/1571595826001/default_default/index.html?videoId=5624429201001" allowfullscreen="" border=0 frameborder=0></iframe></div>
</div>
Access Bank in collaboration with investment advisor, DEG has launched a financial support and solutions offering for German and Nigerian investors called, German Desk Nigeria.

Access Bank, German firms launch platform to boost trade

Patrick Bond |University of the Witwatersrand
At the BRICS summit in Russia two years ago, Chinese Premier Xi Jinping invoked physics when asking fellow leaders “to boost the centripetal (unifying) force of BRICS nations through cooperation in innovation and production capacity to boost competitiveness.”
That was the theory, but the economic reality of the once-feted Brazil-Russia-India-China-South Africa alliance is contradictory.
Instead of centripetal strengthening, the world is witnessing much more powerful centrifugal dividing forces, including overproduction, over-indebtedness and deglobalisation of capital. These elements have been spinning out of control even before the chaotic era of US President Donald Trump began.
Over production is mostly found in the coal, steel, non-ferrous metals, cement and chemicals industries. It’s largely driven from China where over-capacity is more than 30%, according to a new International Monetary Fund report that also raised worries about the country’s vast debt.
Over borrowing by companies, states and households represents a global crisis in the making. The Institute of International Finance has just reported that world debt is now USD$217 trillion (327% of world GDP), up from USD$149 billion (276%) in 2007.
Deglobalisation is simply the reversal &#8211; mostly since 2008 &#8211; of prior rapid growth in cross-border trade, investment and finance. Should that be viewed as a bad thing? Rather than fear globalisation’s unravelling, leading scholar-activists including Samir Amin in Africa, the late Ruy Mauro Marini in Latin America, Walden Bello in Asia and the 20th century’s most important economist, John Maynard Keynes, have all advocated national economic sovereignty. If pursued cleverly, deglobalisation could be the basis for restoring links between once vibrant sectors subsequently destroyed by imports.
Could BRICS leaders evolve in this direction? Their summit next week will be distracted by geopolitical tensions. Although a welcome deal on Monday prevents the feared Sino-Indian border war, a much more durable geo-economic battle is unfolding in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, which in May left Prime Minister Narendra Modi boycotting China’s Belt and Road mega-conference three months ago.
Beijing’s BRICS logo designers, perhaps being unconsciously subversive, have illustrated how the once overlapping, interlocking BRICS are now being wedged apart as paper thin subjects of centrifugal forces. For Africa, fewer illusions in these economies would be welcome, given how exploitative the BRICS and their firms have become against societies, democratic movements and environments.
<h2>A counter-summit challenges the BRICS</h2>
This argument is made by the Hong Kong People’s Forum, initiated by the city’s progressive labour, intellectual and faith leaders to question the BRICS. Their meeting this weekend follows in the counter summit traditions of the 2013 brics-from-below in Durban, the 2014 Dialogue on Development in Fortaleza, and the 2016 Goa People’s Forum on BRICS.
According to the Hong Kong People’s Forum:
<blockquote>Instead of offering an alternative, the BRICS actually offer a continuation of neo-liberalism. On top of BRICS there is also China’s new mega project, the Belt and Road initiative whose main purpose is to export China’s surplus capital.</blockquote>
These surpluses are vast, as witnessed in China’s foreign reserves which recently topped USD$4 trillion, though then fell 20% due to bouts of capital flight and two stock market crashes in 2015-16.
<h2>Deglobalisation</h2>
Global trade, finance and investment were meant to be the motors for the advancement of BRICS. But according to the World Bank, global trade peaked at 61% of world gross domestic product (GDP) in 2008 but retreated to 58% in 2015.
During the 1990s each BRICS country raised its trade to GDP ratio by at least 10 points. But trade has receded in importance in each of the BRICS. Russia peaked first at a 69% trade/GDP ratio in 1999, and then fell steadily to 45% today. Brazil rose to 30% in 2004 and fell to 25%. China soared to 66% in 2006 and has since plummeted to 36%. South Africa’s 2008 ratio was 73% but is now back to 60% and India peaked last, in 2012 with 56%, and is now at 40%.
On top of this, the ratio of world financial assets that are held overseas compared to GDP fell from 58% in 2008 to 38% in 2016, even as overall financial assets increased in line with soaring debt.
Finally, another deglobalisation symptom is the halving of relative global foreign direct investment: from 3.7% of world GDP in 2008 to 1.7% in 2016.
Leading financiers now talk of an imminent world recession, given over priced stock markets and corporate debt. This is not just due to wild New York share speculation, as also occurred before the crashes of 1987, 2000 and 2008. Three BRICS stock markets are also bubbling: South Africa’s stock market is 90% higher than in 2010, India’s market is up 70% and Russia has risen by 50%.
<h2>Centrifugal realities crowd out centripetal fantasies</h2>
These dangerous centrifugal forces cannot be easily regulated or reversed. The only recent relief came from the Chinese state’s massive urban construction investments (albeit leaving scores of near-empty cities) and the Indian service sector boom. But since 2015 the other three BRICS have suffered recessions as the crash in commodity prices hit home.
As the Hong Kong People’s Forum statement explained:
<blockquote>China has now evolved into a global engine promoting a neo-liberal agenda from free trade agreements to corporate led integration across borders.</blockquote>
The BRICS had promised to challenge an unfair global economic system. But in December 2015 their main multilateral reform strategies failed:
<ul>
<li>the Paris Climate Accord was non-binding, unambitious and outlaws climate-debt lawsuits by victims of Western and BRICS emissions;</li>
<li>the World Trade Organisation phased out any semblance of food sovereignty; and</li>
<li>IMF voting shares were shifted to favour BRICS at the expense of poorer countries.</li>
</ul>
Adds the Hong Kong People’s Forum: “The 2017 World Economic Forum in Davos was one site where Xi clearly took the lead in promoting world corporate power, as Trump leads the US-UK retreat into crony-capitalist protectionism.”
South African President Jacob Zuma pronounced last month at his party’s policy congress, “The ANC is part of the global anti-imperialist movement. We are historically connected with the countries of the South and therefore South-South cooperation such as BRICS is primary for our movement.”
If centrifugal economic forces now pressuring the bloc overwhelm Xi’s desired centripetal capitalism, then we can expect yet more talk-left walk-right politics, as the BRICS sub-imperialists desperately try to pretend they’re anti-imperialists.
&nbsp;
This article was first published in The Conversation.

BRICS is being battered by global crises: why this might not be a bad thing

<div style="display: block; position: relative; max-width: 640px;">
<div style="padding-top: 56.25%;"><iframe style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute; top: 0px; bottom: 0px; right: 0px; left: 0px;" src="//players.brightcove.net/1571595826001/default_default/index.html?videoId=5537482605001" allowfullscreen="" border=0 frameborder=0></iframe></div>
</div>
The President of the National Organization Committee and Focal Point of the AGOA Forum Dédé Ahoéfa Ekoue says Africa&#8217;s trade with the US must be inclusive. She spoke to CNBC Africa for more.

Dédé Ahoéfa Ekoue’s expectations from AGOA trade talks

<div style="display: block; position: relative; max-width: 640px;">
<div style="padding-top: 56.25%;"><iframe style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute; top: 0px; bottom: 0px; right: 0px; left: 0px;" src="//players.brightcove.net/1571595826001/default_default/index.html?videoId=5505718027001" allowfullscreen="" border=0 frameborder=0></iframe></div>
</div>
Nigeria&#8217;s Minister of Industry, Trade and Investment, Dr Okechukwu Enelamah, says the country&#8217;s National Action Plan will save Small and Medium Enterprises about N2.6 billion in registration cost annually.

Easing business registration in Nigeria

During the independence struggle, leaders like Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah <a href="http://feintandmargin.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Africa-Must-Unite.pdf">argued</a> that Africa could only rid itself of the scourges of slavery, colonialism, imperialism and racism as a single united entity. The dream was of a fully integrated <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foDlCCudcsE">United States of Africa</a>.
Instead, <a href="https://www.academia.edu/22297466/THE_CONCEPT_OF_STATE_SOVEREIGNTY_FROM_THE_1648_TREATY_OF_WESTPHALIA_TO_THE_PRESENT_DAY">Westphalian principles</a> which focus on state sovereignty and territorial integrity prevailed. Post-colonial Africa emerged as a community of independent, fully sovereign nation-states, loosely affiliated through the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) <a href="http://www.au2002.gov.za/docs/background/oau_to_au.htm">established in 1963</a>.
With colonialism and apartheid out of the way the OAU became largely dysfunctional and was <a href="http://www.sahistory.org.za/topic/organisation-african-unity-oau">replaced</a> by the African Union (AU) in 2001.
More recently, the AU has promoted new dynamics in a bid to meet the challenges of globalisation. Accelerating regional integration is one of them. What this means is that African integration is back on the table.
The European Union (EU) is by far the most successful <a href="https://www.cfr.org/report/european-union-model-regional-integration">integration experiment</a> the modern world has seen. Despite the many differences between Europe and Africa, and the AU and EU, European integration is widely considered as a <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10220461.2015.1119718">model for regional integration</a> and a credible example for Africa to consider.
But the UK’s decision to leave the EU, and other problems faced by the bloc over the past decade, have shown the union to be less than perfect. Under the circumstances, is the EU the best legal blueprint for African integration?
<h2>Giving up sovereign powers</h2>
The EU was formed <a href="https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/history/1945-1959_en">in response</a> to the death and destruction of World War Two. Since then it has successfully brought Europe together, developing an internal single market aimed at the free movement of people, goods, services and capital. Equally important is the fact that EU institutions have the power to make laws. This means that members states have given EU institutions supranational powers to make binding decisions. Ceding these law making powers has played an important role in driving integration.
The EU project led to the bloc becoming a major world trading power and its <a>GDP per capita</a> is now ahead of the US.
Integration across Africa has been weak and ineffectual. Effective integration would bring an opportunity for Africans to collectively take charge of its daunting security, socio-economic and governance problems. And a unified approach would help countries achieve the goals of peace and prosperity <a href="http://www.achpr.org/instruments/au-constitutive-act/">for all African citizens</a>.
The AU says that it’s committed to integration. But so far there’s been very little content to this idea. What we find in Africa is cooperation without integration.
The AU mimics many of the EU institutions in terms of its formal structures. Like the EU, it has its own legislative, executive and judicial bodies in the form of the Pan African Parliament, an Assembly (heads of state), Executive Council (Ministers) and a Court of Justice. But, unlike the EU, institutions don’t have supranational powers enabling them to make binding decisions.
Instead, Africa pursues what it calls “<a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10220461.2015.1119718">cooperative multilateralism</a>” – a commitment to cooperation alongside keeping the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of member states and respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity. This is where the AU’s main problem lies.
Absolute sovereignty is the polar opposite of supranationalism. This gets in the way of binding AU decisions being passed, leaving a legal vacuum that will have to be filled if member states are to collectively develop the capacity and political will to take charge of Africa’s destiny.
But it won’t be easy. National sovereignty has remained a hot potato in the EU and lies at the heart of the UK’s decision to leave. Calls to “<a href="http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/681706/Boris-Johnson-vote-Brexit-take-back-control">take back control</a>” helped to mobilise the support of voters. Promises of restoring national sovereignty – increasing control over the fiscus and borders – managed to clinch it for the leave campaign.
At a superficial level, the British referendum could be seen as an endorsement of the traditional view taken by African governments that sovereign powers shouldn’t be compromised.
African states aren’t ready to shift loyalties to a new centre with political authority over national states. Most believe that a transfer of power will inevitably compromise political independence. This in turn would challenge impunity from accountability that protects many African politicians.
<h2>Finding a balance</h2>
Everything considered, the EU remains a prime example of the benefits regional integration can bring to a continent willing to cooperate.
But AU institutions should only be given supranational powers if it’s done in a way that meets African interests and reflects a balance between regional and national powers.
For that to happen, there needs for a deep trust of governments and ordinary people. And the case needs to be made that the centre can add more than it is taking away when it comes to well-being, security and prosperity.
Recent events in the EU have shown that finding the right balance between regional and national powers is crucial. This balance must be tailored to continental realities. African nations must be convinced that transferring powers would be more beneficial than clinging to absolute sovereignty.
A balance of power can only be achieved by limiting the jurisdiction of the AU to certain mutually agreed areas of cooperation. In these areas AU law would impose legally binding obligations and override national law.
At the same time, any new arrangement cannot allow national sovereignty to continue unlimited.
Striking this balance might entail taking hard decisions. Two big areas of contention would be accepting some interference in domestic affairs and, secondly, endowing the Pan African Parliament with law making powers.
African nations might be persuaded to adopt an EU-style model given the major benefits to trade between member states. Trade within African has far from reached its potential. Intracontinental trade could be enhanced and streamlined.
But the real question is whether the political elite will be willing to take these lessons on board.

Despite Brexit, the EU still holds valuable lessons for African integration

Emma Farge and Mathieu Rosemain
DAKAR/PARIS (Reuters) &#8211; France&#8217;s Bollore Group has submitted an offer to develop Gambia&#8217;s main port as part of a deal worth hundreds of millions of dollars, three sources familiar with the matter said, as competition for contracts heats up after a change in government.
Foreign investors are vying for business in riverine Gambia, which has a population of just 2 million and a GDP of around $900 million, following 22 years of autocratic rule.
Yahya Jammeh was eventually driven into exile from the West African country through a combination of pleas and military threats after losing an election.
The Banjul port at the mouth of the Gambia River &#8212; a key transport lane for shipping peanuts &#8212; has been run for decades by a government agency.
Industry sources say activities were limited by the port&#8217;s size and the heavy involvement of the army.
But they say trade has the potential to boom, given its proximity to a major Atlantic sea lane and improved relations with neighbouring Senegal, which surrounds it on three sides.
Senegal is also working with its neighbour to complete a long-awaited bridge that will help link Dakar and Lagos via a coastal road.
French billionaire Vincent Bollore&#8217;s firm, which already has a sprawling African business empire, signalled its interest in the project shortly after President Adama Barrow was sworn in in February and was part of a French investment delegation in May, according to the industry, banking and diplomatic sources who asked not to be named as talks continue.
One of them said Bollore planned to invest more than $200 million in the port concession, although two other sources say there are in discussions with partners to boost the total Gambian investment package to around $1 billion.
It was not clear what the larger investment package would include and the sources stressed that it was not finalised.
Bollore declined to give an official comment.
The African Export-Import Bank is also considering offering financing for the upgrade and expansion of ports in Gambia and related logistics infrastructure, although it could not be established that this was linked to the Bollore offer.
Yankuba Saidy, permanent secretary for investments at the president&#8217;s office, told Reuters that Gambia had received &#8220;lots&#8221; of offers for the port, including from Bollore, and that a partner had not yet been chosen.
Bollore&#8217;s subsidiary, Bollore Africa Logistics, operates container ports in more than a dozen African countries, including a roll-on, roll-off terminal in Dakar which, like Banjul, affords access to landlocked Mali and Burkina Faso.
($1 = 0.8925 euros)
(Additional reporting by John Irish in Paris)

Bollore pitches for revamp of Gambia’s main port: sources

DAR ES SALAAM | Tanzania&#8217;s government signed a $154 million contract on Saturday with the state-run China Harbour Engineering Company (CHEC) to expand the main port in the commercial capital, Dar es Salaam.
Tanzania is seeking financing for infrastructure projects as part of its plans to transform the country into a regional transport and trade hub.
Under the contract funded by a World Bank loan, CHEC, a subsidiary of the state-run China Communications Construction Co Ltd, will build a roll-on, roll-off (ro-ro) terminal and deepen and strengthen seven berths at Dar es Salaam port.
Tanzania hopes expansion of the port will increase container throughput to 28 million tonnes a year by 2020 from around 20 million tonnes currently.
<blockquote>&#8220;Deepening and strengthening of the berths will allow big container ships to dock in Dar es Salaam. All these efforts are being done in order to increase competitiveness of the port,&#8221; works, transport and communications minister Makame Mbarawa said at the signing of the contract.</blockquote>
East Africa&#8217;s second-biggest economy wants to profit from its long coastline and upgrade its rickety railways and roads to serve the growing economies in the land-locked heart of Africa.
Big gas finds in Tanzania and oil discoveries in Kenya and Uganda have turned East Africa into an exploration hotspot for oil firms, but transport infrastructure in those countries has suffered from decades of under-investment.
Tanzania said in January it will receive a $305 million loan from the World Bank to expand its main port, where congestion and inefficiencies are hampering service delivery.
The port, whose main rival is the bigger but also congested port of Mombasa in Kenya, acts as a trade gateway for landlocked African states such as Zambia, Rwanda, Malawi, Burundi and Uganda, as well as the eastern region of the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The World Bank said in a 2014 report that inefficiencies at Dar es Salaam port were costing Tanzania and its neighbours up to $2.6 billion a year.
Chinese President Xi Jinping announced plans to plough $60 billion into African development projects at a summit in Johannesburg in 2015, saying it would boost agriculture, build roads, ports and railways and cancel some debt.
(Reporting by Fumbuka Ng&#8217;wanakilala; Editing by George Obulutsa and Andrew Bolton)
&nbsp;

Tanzania signs $154 mln contract with Chinese firm to expand main port

Egypt&#8217;s Trade Ministry has issued tough new regulations on importers by sharply raising the minimum capital they need to operate, the government&#8217;s latest effort to curb foreign-made goods and spur local manufacturing.
Under the ministry&#8217;s executive regulations, the minimum capital required for the smallest companies to register was hiked to 500,000 Egyptian pounds (about $28,000) from 10,000 pounds previously. For limited companies, the minimum threshold was raised to two million pounds from 15,000 pounds previously.
<blockquote>&#8220;This is in line with measures taken by the ministry in the past to limit the import of low-quality goods,&#8221; the Trade Ministry said in a statement.</blockquote>
&#8220;It also aims to encourage new investments in national industries and protecting them from unfair competition from imported products,&#8221; it added.
The new regulations also raise the minimum capital required for a joint stock company to be registered to 5 million pounds. Importers will have six months in order to adjust to the reform, which was contained in an amendment to the Importers Register Law passed in March.
Import-dependent Egypt is struggling to revive its economy and curb a trade deficit since a 2011 uprising drove away tourists and foreign investors.
Importers have criticized previous government measures aimed at reducing demand for foreign goods, saying local producers do not have the capacity to fill the gap.
(Reporting by Asma Alsharif; Editing by Helen Popper)

Egypt tightens rules on importers in crackdown on foreign goods

Set against the backdrop of low growth, dire unemployment figures, and a huge infrastructure deficit – the theme of this year’s African <a href="https://www.weforum.org/events/world-economic-forum-on-africa-2017">World Economic Forum</a> (WEF) is “inclusive and sustainable growth”.
This is a familiar subject for policymakers. On both the regional and global stage it’s natural to speak in terms of market integration among groupings of nations to stimulate economic growth. Reducing bottlenecks to trade often serves as the focal point, with Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) typically the formal means of implementing these initiatives.
The idea behind all of this is that connected markets provide a larger base of customers into which companies can sell their products and services. And that, for their part, customers benefit from greater product diversity and value. This in turn creates a virtuous cycle in which a growing economy makes investment in the region more bankable. With greater access to funding, investment in needed capital projects can be accelerated, in turn reducing Africa’s sizeable infrastructure gap and stimulating inclusive growth.
Admittedly, this orthodox take on markets and growth is not firmly embraced across Africa. Rather, what remains prevalent is an emphasises on government intervention and the role of the ‘developmental state’ as seen in South Africa’s <a href="http://www.poa.gov.za/news/Documents/NPC%20National%20Development%20Plan%20Vision%202030%20-lo-res.pdf">National Development Plan </a>.
What’s not in dispute is the continent’s <a href="http://ftp01.economist.com.hk/ECN_papers/Infrastructure-Africa">infrastructure gap</a>. Road and rail transport costs in Africa are estimated to be about 50% greater than comparable regions in other parts of the world. And over 600 million people across the continent lack access to electricity while even greater numbers make do with sub-standard levels of drinking water and sanitation.
Estimates suggest that the continent needs as much as <a href="http://ftp01.economist.com.hk/ECN_papers/Infrastructure-Africa">$1 trillion</a> in invested capital over the next ten years to close the infrastructure gap.
The question is whether the WEF gathering can make a dent in this problem. In reading background studies to this year’s meeting, the forum seems more attuned to the world it would like to see, rather than the one at hand. To move beyond the “spin” the forum should address impediments to inclusive growth.
<h2>New solutions to old problems?</h2>
The WEF is not the first to have focused on market integration as a way to promote economic growth. The African Union Summit has recently taken steps to establish a continental <a href="https://theconversation.com/if-africa-is-serious-about-a-free-trade-area-it-needs-to-act-quickly-and-differently-70234">Free-Trade Area (FTA)</a> that would include all 54 African countries. This is on top of an alphabet soup of long established sub-regional groupings such as the East African Community, West African Community, Southern African Development Community (SADC). A grouping of these three FTAs stands as a Tripartite Free Trade Area covering a combined population of almost 600 million people.
Yet <a href="http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/speech/2015/12/14/deepening-african-integration-intra-africa-trade-for-development-and-poverty-reduction">trade between African nations</a> still represents only 12% of the continent’s total trade. This is far below levels seen in North America (40%), Asia (50%) and Western Europe (70%), and is often cited as an impediment to Africa’s economic development.
SADC’s recent history provides a useful perspective to the successes and failures of African FTAs. SADC was established in its modern form in 1992, having a mandate to promote integration of economic development programmes among member states. At its 2003 <a href="http://www.sarpn.org/documents/d0000492/P462_SADC_Communique_082003.pdf">Dar es Salaam Summit</a> it adopted an ambitious 15 year programme in which a free trade arrangement, customs union, common market and ultimately a regional monetary union were to be established.
While piecemeal progress has been made since then, the plan’s more ambitious aspects have been largely set aside. <a href="http://www.kas.de/upload/auslandshomepages/namibia/MRI2010/MRI2010_chapter8.pdf">Post mortems</a> cite a range of protectionist measures that are defeating its objectives. These include the reluctance of member states to wind back tariffs on goods and services, provisions promoting local content, subsidised industry assistance and visa restrictions.
The <a href="https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-inclusive-growth-and-development-report-2017">WEF</a> has replaced the language of FTA’s and customs unions with the call for “connecting markets, revitalising manufacturing, and integrating innovation”. The practical side of this focuses on industrial corridors in transport, energy markets and financial services and e-commerce.
Here too the SADC was ahead of the curve in terms of planning and adopting a regional infrastructure master <a href="http://www.sadc.int/files/7513/5293/3530/Regional_Infrastructure_Development_Master_Plan_Executive_Summary.pdf">plan</a> in 2012. This sector based “corridor” approach to development is meant to be rolled out across energy, transport, water and telecommunications.
But where the SADC has been quick to plan – it has fallen down in implementation.
<h2>Old problems stand in the way of new solutions</h2>
A report by the <a href="http://www.tips.org.za/files/report_on_regional_infrastructure_development_in_africa_tips_-_ellen_hagerman.pdf">Development Bank of Southern Africa </a> concludes that few measures to facilitate trade have yielded measurable results. National interests have tended to override regional objectives. Local and global protectionist trends have only made this more pervasive.
The <a href="http://www.sadc.int/files/5413/5293/3528/Regional_Infrastructure_Development_Master_Plan_Energy_Sector_Plan.pdf">SADC Energy Plan</a> may become the next non-starter in infrastructure development. So far, it has identified power generation and transmission projects costing between US$ 90 billion to over US$ 200 billion. No doubt some development finance will be allocated to these projects, but the bulk of the required investment is unlikely to move beyond countless feasibility plans.
Obtaining the hundreds of billions needed in power markets alone will require improved standards of governance and regulation. But member states often struggle in these areas, and comprehensive reform across the region seems an unlikely outcome until these fundamental issues are addressed.
<h2>Is rhetoric better than reality?</h2>
It seems incongruous that the WEF talks about the region as the least competitive globally, but follows with the observation that “fortunately, there are <a href="https://www.weforum.org/events/world-economic-forum-on-africa-2017">regional clusters</a> of global manufacturing excellence”.
This is not to discount clusters of excellence. But the WEF’s reference to an African Outer Space Programme within the context of growing a manufacturing base, and pointing to drones as a solution to the continent’s transport woes, is, at best, naive.
Hopefully the meeting will rise above the spin, and make a meaningful attempt at addressing the dire economic conditions affecting the lives of hundreds of millions of people across Africa.

World Economic Forum needs to move beyond spin if it’s going to help Africa

It’s official: Britain is done with Europe.
Prime Minister Theresa May has <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-brexit-divorce-bill-explained-74466">formally triggered</a> the process for withdrawing from the European Union, ensuring that the United Kingdom, one of the largest and most prosperous countries in the EU, will soon leave the 28-member bloc.
While the process could drag on for two years or more, the Brexit decision serves as a historic and stinging rebuke to proponents of a unified Europe. Perhaps more importantly, it calls into question the very future of the EU.
Pro-Europe commentators, on both sides of the Atlantic, have argued that Brexit is a historical blip, a rash decision made by an uninformed electorate after a vicious and one-sided campaign. But to dismiss Britain’s decision as an anomaly is to ignore the facts. We may be witnessing the twilight of the multilateral era.
<h2>A not-so-perpetual peace</h2>
The history of civilization has been one of peoples coming together in larger and larger collectives – from villages to city-states, from city-states to nations and from nations to international organizations. Today, we live in an era typified by the proliferation of global bodies like the United Nations, the World Trade Organization and the European Union.
People have created these greater communities for a number of reasons, but the overriding one has always been the most basic: security. As German philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote in 1795 <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=AFRgKZySxi8C&amp;pg=PA530&amp;lpg=PA530&amp;dq=%22establish+a+nation+of+peoples%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=3ASHMzwJsG&amp;sig=4eUvcjDneWbsxWCY36EvUxuziVY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwidt8q-kvzSAhUPHGMKHeRXCMEQ6AEIHzAB#v=onepage&amp;q=%22establish%20a%20nation%20of%20peoples%22&amp;f=false">in his essay “Perpetual Peace,”</a> the only means for nations to emerge from a state of constant war was to “give up their savage, lawless freedom… and, by accommodating themselves to the constraints of common law, establish a nation of peoples that (continually growing) will finally include all the people of the earth.”
The European Union is arguably the greatest example of this ideal. An organization <a href="https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/history_en">forged</a> from the desolation of two world wars, the EU brought the states of Europe together in a continent-wide commitment to cooperation and integration. Its ultimate aim was to draw nations together so closely that war would become unimaginable.
An impeccable aspiration, to be sure. But Britain’s vote last year to leave the EU illustrates the costs associated with that aspiration, and with multilateralism more generally. Governments have become increasingly <a href="https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/754118/MEP-European-Parliament-lazy-detached-Martin-Schulz?video=">detached</a> from the people they govern. Local communities have <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/05/AR2005060501026.html">surrendered</a> control over an ever-growing array of matters to distant bureaucrats. And people increasingly perceive that their own groups and beliefs are under siege by outsiders.
This sentiment is not isolated to the United Kingdom. Disillusionment with multilateral agreements is widespread today. Just look at President Donald Trump.
During and after the presidential campaign, Trump has repeatedly denounced America’s international agreements. The targets of his ire have ranged from free trade deals (think <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/28/nafta-and-trump-president-plans-two-new-executive-orders.html">NAFTA</a> and the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/us/politics/tpp-trump-trade-nafta.html">Trans-Pacific Partnership</a>) to defense pacts (e.g., <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/27/trump-handed-merkel-374b-nato-bill-during-talks.html">NATO</a>) to environmental accords (see the <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36401174">Paris climate deal</a>). In January, The New York Times even <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/us/politics/united-nations-trump-administration.html">reported</a> that the Trump administration was preparing an executive order entitled “Auditing and Reducing U.S. Funding of International Organizations.” This rhetoric has struck a chord with many Americans who fear that international agreements have destroyed American industry and cost Americans jobs.
But to say that we are disillusioned with multilateralism does not provide an answer to the more difficult question: If not multilateralism, then what?
<h2>Going it alone</h2>
The answer, it appears, is aggressive unilateralism. Instead of working through multilateral institutions to solve their problems, countries are increasingly <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2826708">going it alone</a>.
The United States, for example, has responded to the failure of international negotiations on a range of topics by imposing its domestic laws abroad. The U.S. forces foreign banks to abide by its <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-law-that-makes-u-s-expats-toxic-1444330827">financial regulations</a>, foreign businesses to comply with its <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2636921">corruption laws</a> and foreign producers to adopt its climate change-related emissions <a href="https://www.epa.gov/importing-vehicles-and-engines">standards</a>. All of these laws were made and enforced without international agreement.
In many ways, the rise of unilateralism may be a great boon for societies. The outpouring of activism and political engagement in the U.K. both before and after the Brexit vote signals a certain optimism about the ability of Britons to govern themselves. With any luck, this optimism will lead to a rejuvenation of democracy in the country, a welcome contrast to the deep cynicism more typical of politics today. Similarly, U.S. action to regulate foreign companies may help provide solutions to problems that have been stubbornly resistant to global agreement and treaty-making.
But the disillusionment with multilateralism also comes with a dark side. It is one thing when countries like the U.S. and Britain decide to start taking action in the face of stalled negotiations over climate change and corruption. It is another when countries with very different concepts of the rule of law and democratic processes start imposing their own rules, unilaterally, on American companies.
Just look at Russia’s recent prosecution of Google for <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/12/business/international/google-fine-russia-antitrust-android.html">anti-trust violations</a> or China’s <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/beijing-regulator-orders-apple-to-stop-sales-of-two-iphone-models-1466166711">injunction against the sale of iPhones</a> as examples.
Multilateralism has been a great engine of peace over the course of human civilization, and we should tread carefully in rejecting it. As Kant warned, the alternative is for us to “find perpetual peace in the vast grave that swallows both atrocities and their perpetrators.”

Is Brexit the beginning of the end for international cooperation?

Botswana will cut corporate tax by up to 77 percent for investors in a mining town southeast of the capital, the trade and industry minister said on Tuesday, part of a package to attract them to a region hit by the collapse of BCL Mine.
BCL Mine was put under provisional liquidation in October last year resulting in close to 8,000 jobs being lost in the Selebi-Phikwe region of 50,000 people.
Minister of Investment, Trade and Industry Vincent Seretse said the measures include fiscal incentives, government off-take, provision of land and a one-stop service centre.
The fiscal incentives include five percent corporate tax for the first five years, 10 percent corporate tax thereafter and zero customs duty on imported raw materials.
Corporate tax in Botswana stands at 22 percent while companies in manufacturing and financial services and those registered in the Innovation Hub pay 15 percent corporate tax.
(Writing by Tiisetso Motsoeneng, editing by David Evans)

Botswana seeks to attract investors to mining town with tax cut

Dear President Trump,
I realize it’s been quite a while since we last spoke but I really need to talk to you about something important. You’re obviously kind of busy with the new job and the move down to DC, so let me just get right to it.
Please don’t repeal AGOA and go lights out on Africa. The continent simply can’t handle any more economic damage.
I know that AGOA falls into that big fat “trade” basket that’s been on the top of your agenda since taking office last week. Suffice it to say, you were certainly pretty clear about your feelings on that during the campaign. You’ve already pulled the plug on the Trans-Pacific Partnership on just your 5th day in office. And you’re pounding Mexico every day like a candy-filled piñata at a 10 year old’s birthday party. You’re clearly not wasting any time getting started, are you?
Now I’m hearing that you may want to revoke other trade agreements as well &#8211; including AGOA &#8211; largely because, like TPP, it’s another multilateral deal that you believe is lopsided and bad for America.
Listen, for the record, I understand your thinking on trade. I get it. I’ve been angry too at how things have gone over the past decade here. I definitely wasn’t a fan of how President Obama engaged with the rest of the world. Actually, much of the rest of world wasn’t either.
And yes, I agree with you that it’s America First. That was a really good campaign slogan you came up with. Short, snappy, five syllables. It worked. You won. Obviously, protecting a country’s sovereign interests should always be its’ first priority. But if you check your thesaurus, I don’t think you’ll find the words isolationism and protectionism listed as synonyms for sovereignty.
The real irony here is that for all the manufacturing jobs you are looking to create here with your new trade policies, there are also millions of other jobs that rely on the relationships we have with our global partners that will be hurt &#8211; or worse yet – lost altogether. And, as much as I hate to say it, many of those assembly-line jobs that you want to bring back that were once done by low-skilled workers in the rust belt are now being done by robots and technology. So, many of these jobs simply no longer exist. And I think it’s safe to say that robotics is a major manufacturing trend that will continue pretty much forever. So, while you may be gaining some jobs by bringing manufacturing back from Mexico and China, you’ll ultimately be killing others.
Look, you should probably think all this through a little further. I’m starting to hear that some of our allies are getting a little edgy because you’ve basically just announced that the U.S. is voluntarily giving up its front row seat at the theater in favor of one in the last row of the balcony. What you have to understand is that to lose the United States as an export and business partner would result in some level of economic calamity for most countries that do business with us. And in this case, outside of our enemies, that is virtually everyone else on the planet &#8211; including much of Africa.
I know that that you want to protect us and do what’s right for the country. Believe me, I’m all for it. But globalization isn’t just going to vanish irrespective of the nationalistic winds sweeping across the U.S. and Europe. There’s no doubt that people are angry as hell everywhere you look. Just reading through Twitter and Facebook every day is enough to make some folks run right to their therapist for an emergency session. But you shouldn’t expect that other countries are just going to roll over and agree to everything you demand just because we’re the U.S. Those days are over. Already, since you ripped-up TPP, Canada is talking about doing more business with Japan and China. That conclusion took Justin Trudeau about three days to reach.
There are obviously other big suitors out there with strong economies that will seize the opportunity to replace us in the driver’s seat in a heartbeat. And besides China and Japan, you have India, Saudi Arabia and your good friend, Vladimir Putin, among others who are chomping at the bit to throw money and influence at everyone the U.S. decides to orphan.
So don’t isolate us, Donald. As China’s President Xi Jinping said at Davos in January, “Pursuing protectionism is like locking oneself in a dark room.” Our country has to do business with the rest of the world. We can’t just lower the shades and hang the “closed” sign on the front door. We’re all too inter-connected now and pulling the plug on trade will have severe repercussions many of which even the best and brightest of us can’t foresee because what you’re doing has never been done before &#8211; not like this anyway. So, I don’t know what your advisors are telling you but you might want to Google the phrase “ripple effect” and see what it says.
So with this in mind, please consider AGOA. It has been the centerpiece of U.S. policy in Africa since President Clinton signed it into law in 2000. You know that already. Or maybe you don’t. And what you’ve heard is correct &#8211; it’s not perfect. But you can’t simply walk away from a continent with 1.1 billion people that is expected to grow to 2.0 billion people or more by 2050. Quite frankly, as a businessman, you should be salivating at this and trying to figure out a way to unseat China at Africa’s dinner table. You’ve been fixated on Beijing since before taking office. Think about it &#8211; how great would it be to go after China by dramatically growing the U.S.’s presence in Africa? Increasing investment and trade? It would be the ultimate kick to Chinas groin, wouldn’t it? Be the New York dealmaker we all know you are and show us “The Art of The Deal” as your book it so aptly titled.
I agree with the folks that say that AGOA hasn’t lived up to its promise. Some of the big oil producing countries like Nigeria and Chad have derived the most benefit from it even though there have been well documented abuses with respect to corruption and exploitation. It’s definitely a big problem throughout much of Africa. And some of the smaller countries like Malawi and Gabon have barely even registered on the AGOA meter as their private sectors are so underdeveloped that they have little to export outside of a few crops. Yet, at the same time, there have also been many success stories in sectors like textiles, agriculture and auto manufacturing that demonstrate AGOA’s promise and what it was originally meant to achieve.
But keep this in mind &#8211; these large oil producing countries would take a huge hit if you move to dismantle the pact because a large percentage of their current and future export revenue would be wiped out. With oil prices already weak and production down, this would compound the impact of AGOA’s demise dramatically. Remember, most African economies these days have little to no room for error. So, the effect of AGOA being rescinded would ripple violently across the continent. And if Africa’s already hobbled economic leaders like Nigeria decline even further, the whole continent would ultimately be affected as many of the smaller countries, already on tentative economic footing, would be dragged down with them. This would be devastating.
So, Donald, don’t kill it. Fix it. Renegotiate the parts of it that don’t work just as you’ll probably end up doing with NAFTA and even TPP. Make it better. Put new checks and balances into the system to stem the corruption. Calculate the structure differently. Impose tougher punitive measures or even more stringent disqualification guidelines for those countries who violate the pact’s tenants. And at the same time, maybe look to build in new incentives so that some of the non-oil producing countries can finally benefit from AGOA the way it was originally envisioned.
Remember, AGOA benefits both Africa and the United States. It opens up the world’s largest market to many African countries while allowing for the duty-free flow of culturally diverse, quality products to American business and the American consumer. I think AGOA can be both America First -and- Africa First as well. What could be better? Everyone wins.
So, Donald, help Africa help itself &#8211; and remember that Africa’s gain is not necessarily Americas loss. It can be America’s gain too. Keep AGOA. It matters.
Oh, and by the way, congratulations on the election.﻿
 
David S. Levin is a Managing Partner at Nexus Capital Markets, LLC﻿, micro-Blogging on all things Africa. A New York investor’s view of Africa and other emerging economies. Nexus Capital Markets is a leading Pan-African/U.S. investment bank located in NY and JHB.﻿﻿

Dear President Trump, don't go lights out on Africa

Nigeria has ratified the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA), making it the 107th World Trade Organisation (WTO) member to do so. Only three more ratifications from members are needed to achieve the two-third threshold that will bring the TFA into force.
 Nigeria&#8217;s instrument of acceptance was submitted to the WTO today by the Minister for Industry, Trade and Investment Dr. Okechukwu Enelamah (<a href="http://www.fmiti.gov.ng/">www.FMITI.gov.ng</a>).
 Enelamah met with WTO Director-General Roberto Azevêdo on the margins of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, to mark the deposit.
 “Nigeria&#8217;s ratification of the Trade Facilitation Agreement is a reflection of our commitment to the WTO and a rules-based economy. It is evidence of President Muhammadu Buhari&#8217;s commitment to rapidly implement his presidential initiative on the creation of an enabling environment for business,” Enelamah said.
 “Nigeria would like to see a strengthened WTO that reflects the development principles of developing countries like Nigeria and we praise the effectiveness of DG Azevêdo in this regard,” he added.
 On November 10, 2014, Nigeria submitted its Category A notification to the WTO outlining which substantive provisions of the TFA it intends to implement upon entry into force of the Agreement.
 The TFA will enter into force once two-thirds of the WTO membership has formally accepted the Agreement and ratification is a means of expression for a country to be legally bound by a treaty.
 Concluded at the WTO’s 2013 Bali Ministerial Conference, the TFA contains provisions for expediting the movement, release and clearance of goods, including goods in transit. It also sets out measures for effective cooperation between customs and other appropriate authorities on trade facilitation and customs compliance issues. It further contains provisions for technical assistance and capacity building in this area.
 According to a 2015 study carried out by WTO economists, full implementation of the TFA would reduce members’ trade costs by an average of 14.3 per cent, with developing countries having the most to gain. The TFA also has the ability to reduce the time to import goods by over a day and a half while also reducing time to export by almost two days, representing a reduction of 47 per cent and 91 per cent respectively over the current average. The TFA also has the potential to increase global merchandise exports by up to $1 trillion.
 In addition to Nigeria, some other African countries that have ratified are Botswana, Niger, Togo, Côte d’Ivoire, Kenya, Zambia, Lesotho, Mali, Senegal, Swaziland, Gabon, Ghana and Mozambique.
 The TFA broke new ground for developing and least-developed countries in the way it will be implemented. For the first time in WTO history, the requirement to implement the Agreement was directly linked to the capacity of the country to do so. In addition, the Agreement states that assistance and support should be provided to help them achieve that capacity.
 A Trade Facilitation Agreement Facility (TFAF) was also created at the request of developing and least-developed country members to help ensure that they receive the assistance needed to reap the full benefits of the TFA and to support the ultimate goal of full implementation of the new agreement by all members.

Nigeria ratifies the Trade Facilitation Agreement

At the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2017, ministers of G20 countries called on members to continue on the path of inclusive growth, warning against protectionism. “If you want to get more inclusive growth, you need more free trade,” said Wolfgang Schäuble, Federal Minister of Finance of Germany, which holds the G20 presidency. Schäuble added that the G20 should be redoubling efforts to promote inclusive growth as part of free trade.   Nicolas Dujovne, Minister of Treasury of Argentina, said that, after being closed to international trade, his country will embrace globalization. “The new administration is opening the economy and wants to open up and receive the benefits of globalization to generate more inclusive growth,” he said, acknowledging that trying to avoid competition and openness is not good for Argentina. Argentina will take over the G20 presidency after Germany.   Mehmet Şimşek, Deputy Prime Minister of Turkey, said that protectionism is bad for global growth. He added that inclusive growth – a key focus of the 2015 Turkish G20 presidency – is important for creating jobs and reducing income inequality. “Evidence shows that inequalities constrain global growth,” he said. Despite a drop in the value of the Turkish lira, he reassured investors that the fundamentals are still there.   While too early to comment on the incoming US administration’s policies, Pravin Gordhan, Minister of Finance of South Africa, said that, he expects the US to continue to play a key role in enabling global growth and creating the right framework for inclusivity. “Collective determination can lift global growth and ensure all economies benefit at the right time,” he said.   Responding to a warning from Theresa May, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to not threaten Britain for leaving the European Union, Schäuble countered, “We don’t’ want to punish the UK [for Brexit].” He explained: “We’re not happy with the decision and I don’t think it’s good for the UK or Europe … We need to minimize the damage to the EU and UK.” Schäuble added: “If you want to make our economies stable, we all agree the direction is for more growth inclusiveness and sustainability.”   The 47th World Economic Forum Annual Meeting is taking place on 17-20 January in Davos-Klosters, Switzerland, under the theme Responsive and Responsible Leadership. More than 3,000 participants from nearly 100 countries will participate in over 400 sessions. ﻿

Ministers call on G20 to aim for inclusive growth from WEF

In a special address at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting, Theresa May, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, said that Britain would stand up for free markets, free trade and globalization, and would work to ensure that they work for everyone.
“Forces that underpin the rules-based international system that is key to global security are somehow at risk of being undermined,” she warned. “The sense among the public is that mainstream political leaders have failed to hear their concerns for too long.” The Brexit, Britain’s decision by referendum last year to leave the European Union, was the outcome of this failure, May explained. The British “chose to build a truly global Britain,” she reckoned. “It means that Britain must face up to a period of momentous change. The UK will step up to a new leadership role.”   Britain will become even more global and internationalist, May asserted. It is not turning its back on Europe. “We are a European country and proud of our European heritage, but we are also a country that has always looked beyond Europe. I want the UK to emerge from this period of change as a truly global Britain, a country that goes out into the world. We are going to be a confident country that is in control of its own destiny once again.” This new global role will not compromise Britain’s identity, May argued. “A global Britain is no less British because we are a hub for foreign investment.” Britain will continue to promote international cooperation wherever it can, she said, noting that she has convened a panel at the Annual Meeting this year to address slavery.   In building this global Britain, “we have to take the people with us,” May said, recognizing that “talk of greater globalization can make people fearful.” She added: “We must never forget that our first responsibility as governments is to serve the people. We need to do more to respond to the concerns of people who feel that the modern world has left them behind.”   To win the trust of the people will require new approaches by government and business, May explained. Businesses will have to show that they are playing by the same rules as everybody else. She said she welcomes <a href="http://weforum.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=6308fe51b420dc9ff3834abc8&amp;id=eb5ae6bec6&amp;e=42980baa5c">The Compact for Responsive and Responsible Leadership</a>, sponsored by the International Business Council of the World Economic Forum. The compact aims to create a corporate governance framework with a focus on the long-term sustainability of corporations and the long-term goals of society.   Governments may have to adopt industry strategies to make markets, trade and globalization more fair and inclusive, with the benefits widely shared, the prime minister stressed. “I am determined to stand up for free markets, free trade and globalization” and “to use this moment to provide responsive and responsible leadership to bring the benefits of free trade to every corner of the world.” She concluded: “We must step up and take control to make sure that free trade and globalization work for everyone.” ﻿

May: Brexit means a global Britain that makes globalization work for all

The president of Djibouti on Monday formally launched the construction of a project touted as Africa&#8217;s largest free trade zone, to be built in the tiny Horn of African nation with Chinese backing.
The agreement to build the 48 sq km (19 sq mile) free trade zone was signed in March 2016 as part of China&#8217;s bid to expand trade routes, a series of infrastructure initiatives stretching across 60 countries that the Chinese have dubbed &#8220;One Belt, One Road&#8221;.
Tiny Djibouti, population 876,000, has long punched above its weight. It hosts large U.S. and French naval bases; China is also building a naval base. Djibouti also handles roughly 95 percent of the inbound trade for neighbouring Ethiopia, population 99 million.
<div class="teads-inread">
<div>
<div class="teads-player" id="teads2"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="teads-inread">
<div>
<div class="teads-player" id="teads1"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="teads-inread">
<div>
<div class="teads-player" id="teads0"></div>
</div>
</div>
&#8220;(Djibouti) aims to become a gateway not only to Ethiopia but to South Sudan, Somalia and the Great Lakes region,&#8221; Aboubaker Omar Hadi, chairman of the Djibouti Ports and Free Zone Authority, told Reuters.
&#8220;This new free zone will be the country&#8217;s first employment reservoir, with more than 15,000 direct and indirect jobs created.&#8221;
China’s largest public port operator, Dalian Port Corporation Limited, is building the free trade zone. The Djibouti Ports and Free Zone Authority will operate it in a joint venture with China Merchants Holdings.
The agreement calls for the zone to handle $7 billion in trade within two years. Djibouti will create a unified customs system with China, establish a transit trade centre and set up a currency clearing system, the agreement said.
Chinese companies are also expanding Djibouti&#8217;s Doraleh Multipurpose Port, estimated to cost $590m and scheduled to be operational in 2017, and building two new airports for with a combined cost of $599m.
The larger of the two facilities – slated for completion in 2018 – will be located 25 km south of Djibouti City and will be able to handle 1.5 million passengers per year and 100,000 tonnes of cargo. The second facility, located in the north, will have a capacity of 767,000 passengers per year.﻿

Djibouti breaks ground on massive Chinese-backed free trade zone

We can only speculate as to what extent the Donald Trump administration could affect the African continent. However, we believe the two main areas of concern based on Trump’s election rhetoric are foreign trade and US foreign assistance (US aid). Trump has openly voiced his unhappiness with both overseas aid and existing trade deals.
Could AGOA be cancelled under Trump?
Although vocal on existing trade deals, Trump has mentioned very little with respect to his stance on trade with Africa. Perhaps this is because in 2015, non-oil and gas trade into the US under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) was only around US$4.5bn, representing just 2% of the United States’ total global trade and hence very insignificant for the country. 
AGOA is a trade agreement with the US which allows 38 eligible sub-Saharan African countries to export thousands of different products to the US duty-free. This treaty was recently renewed and expires in 2025. Trump’s concern with US trade deals is rooted in the notion that these deals may be detrimental to American jobs. However, it’s not generally thought that AGOA has led to any significant jobs losses in the US and the agreement has not been a focus of lobbying groups. 
Although Africa previously had a trade surplus with the US under AGOA, as a result of declining oil prices and falling oil and gas products exported to the US from Africa, the trade gap has closed significantly as illustrated in Figure 1. The trade balance is now only slightly weighted in favour of AGOA countries.  
Figure 1
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" src="/media/19262401/trump_agoa_fig_1.jpg" width="600" height="279" alt="Trump AGOA Fig 1"/>﻿
Source: AGOA.info
Our view is therefore that it is very unlikely that AGOA will be cancelled under a Trump administration as there would be little direct benefit for the US in doing so.  On the other hand, the AGOA treaty is very beneficial to sub-Saharan Africa with the leading exporters to the US illustrated in Figure 2. In the event that trade under AGOA is reduced, it could be argued that this would incentivise increased intra-Africa trade which would be very positive for the continent as a whole. 
Figure 2
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" src="/media/19262408/trump_agoa_fig_2.jpg" width="600" height="247" alt="Trump AGOA Fig 2"/>﻿
Source: AGOA.info
Removal/reduction of US foreign assistance to Africa (US aid)
The US intends to spend a total of US$34bn on foreign assistance in FY2017 of which 21% is planned to go to Africa. This is 0.2% of the FY2017 US budget which means any removal or reduction of aid to Africa would save the US very little should Trump decide to target this expenditure. In addition, part of this foreign assistance supports US business. For example, Egypt receives US$1.5bn in foreign assistance of which 90% is spent on ‘Peace and Security’ where Egypt’s military equipment is largely bought from the US. 
US aid means far more for Africa than it does for the US. The following table illustrates foreign assistance for 2016 as a percentage of government consumption for some large African countries as well as the key budgetary areas that it is destined for. 
Figure 3
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" src="/media/19262415/trump_agoa_fig_3.jpg" width="600" height="307" alt="Trump AGOA Fig 3"/>﻿
Source: Economic Intelligence Unit, <a href="http://foreignassistance.gov/" target="_blank">foreignassistance.gov</a>
The concern is that Trump has in the past tweeted his disapproval of the foreign assistance US sends to Africa as illustrated:
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" src="/media/19262422/trump_agoa_fig_4.jpg" width="400" height="155" alt="Trump AGOA Fig 4"/>﻿
His view may be changing however. At a rally in New Hampshire, Trump was asked whether he would double the number of people receiving AIDS/HIV treatment by 2020 to which he replied: “Yes, I believe so strongly in that, and we’re going to lead the way”. PEPFAR (The United States President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief) forms part of the foreign assistance which the US supplies to Africa.  
This suggests that a Trump presidency will still support certain types of aid such as health which makes up a large portion of Africa’s financial assistance from the US as shown in Figure 3. In addition, although foreign assistance does not always get directed in the best possible direction and could also fall foul of corruption, financial aid has evolved from direct budgetary support to specific projects which has resulted in increased accountability.
We therefore believe US aid to Africa will continue, although a gradual reduction in Africa’s dependence on US foreign assistance would most likely be positive for the continent over the longer-term.
In conclusion, although Donald Trump has been vocal in his disapproval of trade treaties and US aid, we believe that the benefits to the US of removing or reducing those related to Africa are so small that the status quo is likely to be largely maintained.﻿

trade

Access Bank, German firms launch platform to boost trade

BRICS is being battered by global crises: why this might not be a bad thing

Dédé Ahoéfa Ekoue’s expectations from AGOA trade talks

Easing business registration in Nigeria

Despite Brexit, the EU still holds valuable lessons for African integration

Bollore pitches for revamp of Gambia’s main port: sources

Tanzania signs $154 mln contract with Chinese firm to expand main port

Egypt tightens rules on importers in crackdown on foreign goods

World Economic Forum needs to move beyond spin if it’s going to help Africa

Is Brexit the beginning of the end for international cooperation?

Botswana seeks to attract investors to mining town with tax cut

Dear President Trump, don't go lights out on Africa

Nigeria ratifies the Trade Facilitation Agreement

Ministers call on G20 to aim for inclusive growth from WEF

May: Brexit means a global Britain that makes globalization work for all

Djibouti breaks ground on massive Chinese-backed free trade zone

Trump effect on Africa

News Tips

Advertise With Us

trade

Access Bank, German firms launch platform to boost trade

BRICS is being battered by global crises: why this might not be a bad thing

Dédé Ahoéfa Ekoue’s expectations from AGOA trade talks

Easing business registration in Nigeria

Despite Brexit, the EU still holds valuable lessons for African integration

Bollore pitches for revamp of Gambia’s main port: sources

Tanzania signs $154 mln contract with Chinese firm to expand main port

Egypt tightens rules on importers in crackdown on foreign goods

World Economic Forum needs to move beyond spin if it’s going to help Africa

Is Brexit the beginning of the end for international cooperation?

Botswana seeks to attract investors to mining town with tax cut

Dear President Trump, don't go lights out on Africa

Nigeria ratifies the Trade Facilitation Agreement

Ministers call on G20 to aim for inclusive growth from WEF

May: Brexit means a global Britain that makes globalization work for all

Djibouti breaks ground on massive Chinese-backed free trade zone

Trump effect on Africa

News Tips

Advertise With Us

Newsletters