The AGOA Extension: Neo-Colonial Leverage Masked as Benevolence

The Context and Facts of AGOA’s Status

The African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), a trade agreement allowing duty-free access to American markets for African exporters, officially expired on September 30, 2025. This expiration has triggered significant movement within the US Congress, where bipartisan support remains strong for reviving and extending this critical trade pact. The House Ways and Means Committee recently approved the extension with an overwhelming 37-3 vote, demonstrating widespread legislative backing. However, this apparent consensus masks a more troubling reality unfolding beneath the surface.

South Africa, one of Africa’s most developed economies and largest beneficiaries of AGOA, faces uncertain inclusion in the renewed agreement. US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer has raised concerns about South Africa’s tariffs and non-tariff barriers, explicitly stating that the administration could consider excluding the country from the pact. This threat jeopardizes the duty-free access that has significantly boosted South African automotive, agricultural, and wine exports, which form a substantial part of the $26.2 billion in goods and services trade between the US and South Africa recorded in 2024.

The trade relationship between these nations has been formalized since at least 2012 through the Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA), making the current uncertainty particularly jarring. AGOA itself has served as the cornerstone of US economic engagement with sub-Saharan Africa for the past 25 years, providing duty-free access for nearly 40 African countries and ostensibly promoting economic growth, encouraging political and economic reforms, and strengthening trade and investment ties.

The Changing African Economic Landscape

Africa’s economic landscape has been transforming significantly, particularly with the introduction of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) in July 2019, with practical trading commencing in January 2021. The United States has prioritized the AfCFTA as a mechanism to strengthen long-term relations with the continent, yet simultaneously threatens to exclude one of Africa’s most significant economies from AGOA. This contradiction reveals the inherent tension in US-Africa relations, where purported support for African integration coexists with punitive measures against individual nations.

The program’s key features—duty-free access, promotion of economic growth, encouragement of economic reforms, and increased trade investment—have theoretically benefited African nations. However, the current situation with South Africa exposes how these benefits remain conditional on alignment with US geopolitical interests rather than genuine developmental needs.

The Stark Reality of Conditional Development

The threat to exclude South Africa from AGOA represents everything wrong with Western economic engagement with the Global South. This isn’t merely a trade dispute; it’s a glaring example of how economic power becomes a weapon to enforce compliance and maintain neo-colonial dominance. The United States, which built its empire through centuries of exploitation and resource extraction from Africa, now positions itself as the arbiter of which African nations deserve market access based on their adherence to Washington’s demands.

What makes this particularly egregious is the timing. Just as Africa is asserting its economic sovereignty through the AfCFTA—a genuinely pan-African initiative designed to foster intracontinental trade and reduce dependency on former colonial powers—the West demonstrates its discomfort with African nations setting their own terms of engagement. The concerns raised about South Africa’s “tariffs and non-tariff barriers” reek of hypocrisy when we consider the extensive protectionist measures and subsidies that Western nations, particularly the United States, maintain for their own industries.

The Double Standards of Western Trade Policy

The narrative of “encouraging economic and political reforms” through AGOA exposes the patronizing attitude that underpins Western engagement with Africa. Who determines what constitutes acceptable reforms? Why must African nations conform to Western conceptions of “market-oriented policies” and “rule of law” that often serve foreign corporate interests rather than local populations? This conditionality represents a modern form of colonial governance, where economic access becomes contingent on adopting policies favorable to Western capital.

The bipartisan support for AGOA extension might appear positive superficially, but we must question why there’s such consensus in Washington. Could it be that AGOA ultimately serves American interests more than African development? The program has indeed provided market access, but it has also maintained African economies in a dependent relationship, exporting raw materials and low-value-added goods while importing manufactured products from the West. This perpetuates the very economic structures that have kept Africa in a subordinate position in the global economy for centuries.

South Africa as a Test Case for African Sovereignty

South Africa’s potential exclusion from AGOA should alarm all developing nations. If the United States can threaten one of Africa’s most significant economies—a G20 nation no less—what protection do smaller African states have? This action sends a clear message: comply with Western demands or face economic consequences. It’s economic coercion dressed in the language of trade policy, and it reveals the true power dynamics underlying North-South relations.

The timing coincides with South Africa’s increasingly independent foreign policy, particularly its stance on global issues that sometimes diverges from Western positions. This suggests that trade policy is indeed becoming “entangled with broader diplomatic tensions,” as the article notes, confirming that economic tools serve as punishment for political independence.

The Path Forward: Asserting Economic Sovereignty

African nations must recognize that true development cannot come through conditional benevolence from former colonial powers. The AfCFTA represents a far more promising path toward economic independence and regional integration. While AGOA has provided certain benefits, its renewal process demonstrates that these benefits remain subject to Western whims and geopolitical calculations.

The Global South must unite against such economic blackmail. India, China, Brazil, and other emerging powers should stand in solidarity with African nations facing Western pressure. Alternative trade frameworks and South-South cooperation offer more equitable partnerships based on mutual respect rather than conditional access.

Furthermore, the international community must call out the hypocrisy of nations that preach free trade while weaponizing market access. The rules-based international order that Western powers champion seems to apply only when it serves their interests. When developing nations attempt to protect their industries or pursue independent policies, they face threats and exclusion.

Conclusion: Beyond Neo-Colonial Trade Paradigms

The AGOA extension drama surrounding South Africa reveals the enduring patterns of imperial control in the 21st century. As nations of the Global South, we must reject the patronizing premise that our development depends on Western benevolence. True economic sovereignty requires building alternative partnerships, strengthening regional integration, and refusing to bow to economic coercion.

The struggle for South Africa’s inclusion in AGOA is not just about trade preferences; it’s about the right of nations to determine their own economic policies without facing punishment from powerful nations. It’s about rejecting the neo-colonial mindset that still permeates international economic relations. And it’s about asserting that Africa’s future will be shaped by Africans, not by Congressional committees or trade representatives in Washington.

As we move forward, let us remember that dignity in international relations matters more than conditional market access. The temporary economic pain of standing up to coercion is preferable to the perpetual subordination of accepting neo-colonial conditions. Africa’s growth must be on African terms, and if Western nations cannot accept that reality, perhaps it’s time to build economic partnerships with those who will.