SA must guard its Agoa status

The African Growth and Opportunity Act (Agoa) which was initially implemented by the United States Congress in 2000, and recently extended until 2025, offers preferential access to qualifying sub-Saharan countries to US markets in the fabric and apparel sectors.

The Act aims to support the sourcing of local fabric and apparel from developing countries in sub-Saharan Africa where it is available in sufficient quantities.

The eligibility criteria governing preferential market access under the auspices of Agoa requires that sub-Saharan countries, for example, demonstrate consistent improvement in their human rights record and the rule of law.

While the eligibility requirements are stipulated in the legislation governing the Act, the US government can, at its discretion, decide if a sub-Saharan country’s beneficiary status can be withdrawn its president.

Unlike other reciprocal and bilateral trade agreements, there is no recourse through dispute settlement mechanisms in circumstances where a country’s beneficiary status under Agoa has been withdrawn.

The nonrecourse posture under the Act arguably possesses an unpredictable dilemma on the part of benefitting sub-Saharan African countries under the auspices of Agoa.

In addition to ensuring inviolable consistency in maintaining strict compliance at all times with the beneficiary requirements stipulated under Agoa for sub-Saharan countries, the discretionary conditionality of withdrawal of benefitting status by the US president and the nonrecourse posture should serve as a cautionary invitation to any sub-Saharan African country benefitting under the auspices of the Act to tread carefully when implementing domestic and foreign policy imperatives.

SA’s human rights record and the rule of law, to a significant degree, merit unequivocal applause, which should enable the country to qualify for the extension of its beneficiary status under the auspices of Agoa.

In terms of resolving international conflicts, SA is generally known to pursue a non-alignment posture. Whereas it has postured a non-aligned foreign policy position in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, its inconsistency in the application of its foreign policy position in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict provides myopic inconsistency regarding its claimed non-alignment posture.

In support of Palestine, the department of international relations and cooperation has reiterated the alignment of its foreign policy with the demands made by violent political groups acting on behalf of Palestinians.

To what extent, given the solid relationship between Israel and the US, would SA’s evident myopic inconsistency in the application of its foreign policy position in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict precipitate debilitating domino effects resulting in the refusal by the US to renew SA’s eligibility status to Agoa when it expires in 2025?

SA’s inconsistency in the application of its foreign policy position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may have a debilitating domino effect, which could prevent the renewal of its eligibility status to Agoa by the US.

Dr Peter Wandwasi is a senior research fellow at the University of Johannesburg’s Institute for Pan-African Thought and Conversation