Global trade has never been fair. The reality becomes clearer when examining Trump's proposed tariffs against the backdrop of Africa's industrialization agenda. No African economy can compete with the US economy. Not even close. This becomes painfully obvious when looking at the EAC and SADC regions, where Kenya's nominal GDP stands at $155 billion with per capita GDP of $2,070, while South Africa reaches $399 billion with per capita GDP of $6,650. Compare that to America's $26.9 trillion economy and $80,000 per capita GDP.
These economies cannot fairly compete. It's like putting a lightweight boxer against a heavyweight champion and expecting a fair fight. While US economic nationalism makes sense for American interests, forcing tariffs so African economies open to US imports is essentially a suicide mission. It kills the few industries that actually exist.
The suggestion that African entrepreneurs should relocate to the US to manufacture goods for American markets contradicts Africa's entire development strategy. Why would we develop another market instead of our own? This fundamental contradiction reveals the deeper tensions in global trade relations that rarely get addressed in mainstream economic discussions.
AGOA and the Shifting Power Balance
The potential non-renewal of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) threatens to transform US-Africa relations far beyond mere trade numbers. Without AGOA, the US will lose significant goodwill from African nations on the global stage, including at the United Nations where African votes have often aligned with American interests or at least, not gone against American interests.
This diplomatic shift could accelerate Africa's pivot toward Asian partners, particularly China. Beijing already holds considerable influence across the continent, and removing one of America's primary economic engagement tools would only strengthen China's position. The geopolitical consequences would extend far beyond trade statistics, reshaping diplomatic alignments for decades to come.
AGOA's potential demise represents more than just the end of a trade program. It signals a paradigm shift in how African nations perceive their relationship with traditional Western partners. When economic bridges collapse, political ones often follow.
The Angola Problem
Commodity exporters like Angola face existential threats that current policy discussions largely ignore. With US trade representing approximately 10% of Angola's GDP, primarily through crude oil exports, the country stands particularly vulnerable to American tariffs.
This exposure reveals several structural weaknesses. Angola suffers from overdependence on a single commodity, limited diversification of export markets, inadequate foreign exchange buffers, minimal local refining capacity, and high external debt linked directly to oil revenues. The potential social fallout from revenue shortfalls, including cuts to public services and jobs, rarely enters policy conversations.
Current Angolan policies lack both urgency and depth in addressing these vulnerabilities, particularly since the US policy shift and imposition of tariffs came with no warning or adequate time for preparation. Trade diversification, value addition strategies, and economic resilience planning remain underdeveloped despite the looming threats. This pattern repeats across many African commodity exporters, creating a continental vulnerability that tariffs would only exacerbate.
Unexpected Opportunities in Crisis
What if African nations redirected their economic strategies away from US markets due to tariffs? Several unexpected opportunities might emerge that challenge traditional Western-facing development models.
First, intra-African trade could accelerate under the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). Rather than exporting primarily to Western markets, African producers might find growing markets closer to home, reducing transportation costs and building regional resilience.
Second, deeper South-South economic ties could flourish with countries like India, Brazil, and Gulf nations. These relationships often come with fewer political conditions and more emphasis on mutual benefit than traditional North-South arrangements.
Third, local value addition could receive renewed focus. Instead of exporting raw materials, African countries might invest more in refining and manufacturing capabilities, capturing more of the value chain domestically.
Fourth, the digital economy presents opportunities that bypass physical trade barriers entirely. African nations could export services rather than physical goods, leveraging their young, increasingly connected populations.
Finally, renewed investment in rural economies and agriculture could strengthen food security and reduce import dependency. This shift would mark a departure from conventional development paths that prioritize urban industrialization and export markets.
Such pivots would represent a fundamental break from dependency on Western markets and institutions. They could foster more sovereign, regionally integrated, and diversified growth models led by domestic priorities rather than external demand.
Power Asymmetries Laid Bare
The proposed US tariffs starkly reveal the asymmetric power dynamics in global trade, particularly for EAC and SADC countries. Many of these nations are only now beginning to lay the groundwork for export-oriented manufacturing after decades as raw material suppliers.
Serious efforts to develop value-added industries through special economic zones, local content requirements, and regional value chain development have only gained momentum in the past five years. These nascent industrial policies now face external threats before they've had time to mature.
Tariffs imposed by powerful economies like the US highlight the vulnerability of late-industrializing nations trying to diversify beyond primary exports. These measures can undermine emerging manufacturing sectors before they achieve global competitiveness, revealing how trade rules often favor established industrial powers.
The mere threat of tariffs, even before actual implementation, deters investment, disrupts early supply chain development, and reinforces dependency on commodity exports. This dynamic slows Africa's long-overdue industrialization leap, perpetuating economic hierarchies that have persisted since colonial times.
Alternative Frameworks for Mutual Benefit
African nations need not choose between their industrialization goals and addressing US misguided concerns about trade imbalances, when it comes to Africa. Alternative frameworks exist that could satisfy both objectives.
Co-investment in regional value chains offers one promising approach. By inviting US firms to participate in industries like agro-processing, critical minerals processing, and textiles, African countries can foster industrial growth while aligning with American commercial interests. This strategy creates win-win scenarios rather than zero-sum competitions. However, the question is whether the Trump era really wants a win-win for all, or rather wants a "win-it-all" for America?
Expanding intra-African trade under the AfCFTA simultaneously reduces dependency on any single market while building economic resilience. A more integrated African market becomes more attractive to foreign investors, including Americans seeking new growth opportunities.
Strategic economic partnerships focused on protected technology transfer and skills development could address US concerns about intellectual property while accelerating African industrial capabilities. Unlike tariff-based approaches, these partnerships build capacity rather than restricting market access.
The key lies in moving beyond transactional trade relationships that have existed until now, toward developmental partnerships that recognize both parties' legitimate interests. This shift requires moving past outdated donor-recipient models toward genuine economic collaboration.
Redefining Economic Sovereignty
The tension between Trump-era manufacturing-focused protectionism and Africa's SEZ development strategy highlights a shifting concept of economic sovereignty in the 21st century.
The US push for reshoring and tariff-based protectionism reflects a desire to reclaim industrial power and control over supply chains. Meanwhile, African nations use SEZs to attract foreign investment, build export-oriented industries, and integrate into global value chains. This fundamental clash reveals that sovereignty today isn't just about controlling borders and resources but about strategic integration and leverage in a globalized system.
Economic sovereignty now resembles negotiated interdependence more than isolation. African countries using SEZs must carefully balance openness to global capital with long-term goals of local value addition, technology transfer, and employment creation. The US shift toward economic nationalism undermines the very global trade rules that it created in the first place, and that African countries rely on for industrialization.
This evolving dynamic challenges the traditional view that developing nations must simply integrate into existing global systems. Instead, sovereignty now requires building domestic capabilities while navigating external economic pressures to protect national development agendas.
Philosophical Questions About Global Integration
Beyond immediate economic impacts, these tariffs raise deeper philosophical questions about the sustainability and fairness of current models of global economic integration.
Can a system premised on liberalized trade remain sustainable when economic nationalism resurfaces among its primary architects, while developing nations are still encouraged to open up? This contradiction exposes a fundamental tension that has always existed, but never brought to the surface until now: Is global integration truly mutual and rules-based, or selectively enforced to preserve the dominance of already industrialized nations?
The tariffs also challenge assumptions about development pathways and global interdependence. If rising economies face penalties just as they begin to industrialize or integrate into higher-value supply chains, does the global system genuinely allow for mobility and equity? Or is it structurally designed to maintain hierarchy?
These questions extend beyond economics into ethics. Who truly benefits from globalization, and who bears its risks? A more just and resilient global economy might require rebalancing power, norms, and the very purpose of trade. Perhaps trade should function not just as a mechanism for profit but as a tool for shared prosperity and development.
As African nations stand at this economic crossroads, the choices made today will shape development trajectories for generations. The response to Trump's tariffs offers an opportunity to reimagine economic relationships beyond traditional models of dependency and extraction. The challenge lies in crafting alternatives that protect industrialization ambitions while engaging constructively with global powers.
The contradiction between US economic nationalism and Africa's development needs reveals not just policy tensions but competing visions of what a fair global economy should look like. Can African countries survive in a global environment where a US giant, with its towering GDP of 27 trillion, perceives the global economy to be unfair and skewed against it? Resolving this contradiction requires moving beyond simplistic trade metrics toward a more nuanced understanding of how economic relationships can foster genuine development rather than perpetuating historical inequities.
