Trade And Democratization:the Inconsistency Of U.S.Agoa Policy Toward Sub-Saharan Africa,2000-2015

The end of cold war era saw U.S.become more assertive than ever in liberalization and democracy promotion globally.It is on this account that U.S.would play a major role in developing countries' ‘third wave of democratization' across the world.Studies on democratization have broadly examined various instruments used in democracy promotion.These instruments have ranged from;diplomatic pressures,foreign aid,trade,military,sanctions among others.Research and outcome on democracy promotion across board have remained varied and inconclusive depending on actors involved,interests at play and instruments used.This study sought to examine U.S.use of an economic and trade policy in the name of African Growth and Opportunity Act(AGOA),as an instrument for trade and democracy promotion in Sub Saharan African countries.The AGOA policy grants eligible Sub-Sahara African countries that meet certain pre-conditions of democratic governance and market liberalization,trade preference benefits of accessing U.S.market duty free.A number of African countries that have met these conditions on democratic governance have benefited from AGOA trade preference by exporting products and accessing U.S.market duty free.Equally however,some African countries that have had poor democratic records like military coups,human right abuse,poor governance,reduced political space among other non-democratic practices have been expelled from AGOA trade preference.Since the adoption of AGOA Act in 2000,there is observed element of inconsistencies on the manner U.S.has implemented the policy.This is with regard to skewed nature of AGOA trade patterns that is largely in favor of U.S.interest on oil with few beneficiary African countries and limited product lines.The major inconsistency on democracy promotion is witnessed when U.S.has continuously provided AGOA policy trade preference to some African countries that have had poor democratic record which goes against AGOA policy criteria on democratic governance.Ideally,as provided in AGOA policy,several Sub-Saharan African countries with poor democratic records have been stripped of the policy's trade preferences of accessing U.S.market duty free.This study therefore specifically aimed to understand why,how and under conditions has U.S.been(in)consistent in the execution AGOA policy on trade and democracy promotion toward Sub-Sahara Africa with select three case studies.The study adopted hegemony theory as a framework to understand the inconsistent nature of U.S.AGOA policy toward sub-Sahara African countries.The theory is premised on Antonio Gramsci conceptualization of hegemony,which is seen as ‘a dominant social class that establishes order over a subordinated class in a society'.In international relations,a hegemonic state is a state that uses both material and ideational power toward other states,to pursue on own interests at global and regional levels.The hegemonic state does this by providing public good masked as mutually beneficial to subordinate states yet in real sense they must first serve hegemon's national interests.The study considers AGOA policy as a hegemonic tool used by U.S.to pursue own interests in Sub-Sahara Africa.U.S.employed both material and ideational power resources in the execution of AGOA framework toward target states in Sub-Sahara Africa.Hegemonic U.S.has also masked AGOA policy as mutually beneficial to subordinate states in Africa,yet in real sense it exist to serve hegemon's national interests.This explains the inconsistency witnessed in the implementation of the policy.The study uses qualitative and process tracing research design to unpack AGOA policy intentions and its resultant outcome and explanations therein.Towards meeting the study objectives,three case studies of Ethiopia,Angola and Burundi were selected to understand why U.S.been inconsistent in democracy promotion through AGOA policy.While Ethiopia and Angola offer explanations as to why U.S.was inconsistent in the implementation of AGOA policy,Burundi case demonstrates the condition under which U.S.is consistent in democracy promotion through the AGOA framework.As a background to the study and understanding U.S.AGOA policy on democracy promotion,reviewed literature in post cold war era has shown U.S.using different types of instruments in democracy promotion with different outcome of both successes and failures.Military means has been used in Middle East and North Africa,especially at the onset on war against terrorism without so much success.In Eastern Europe and Latin America,trade and trade sanctions,diplomatic pressure and foreign aid have been used in a number of targeted countries with varied outcomes.The same can be said of Sub-Sahara Africa where U.S.has had very minimal strategic interests.Above all,from the literature reviewed,whenever ideational interest to promote democracy has clashed with material interests of economic and security,the latter has taken precedence.This has exposed hypocrisy of the U.S.as a beacon of light and her steadfast commitment to democratic governance around the world.On AGOA policy impact on U.S.trade relations with Sub Sahara Africa,the study found the policy has increased Africa's trade volume exports to U.S However,increased African export to U.S.is limited to a select number of African countries and the exports are 80% largely dominated by oil,with other products constituting 20% of exports.This finding is largely due to the fact that AGOA policy has restrictions through quotas and tariff on the importation of a number of African products especially agricultural produce.Equally,other supply side challenges explain skewed nature on the utilization of AGOA policy.The policy provision is so far not being utilized to its full potential,thus defeating the logic and the rationale behind the policy objectives which was meant to increase Africa's trade export as a means to spur economic growth and sustainable development.Nevertheless,a select few countries like Lesotho,Swaziland(Eswatini),Kenya and Mauritius have benefited by exporting apparel and textile products to U.S.although it is a small percentage compared to oil exporting countries.When critically analyzed the study concludes the policy has marginally changed U.S.tariffs barriers towards Sub Sahara African countries.This is due to the fact that majority of the targeted Sub-Sahara African countries were well covered by GSP provisions;to which majority of African countries belong.In the end,AGOA policy is seen as hegemonic U.S.instrument to further economic interests in the continent.On democracy promotion which was the main focus,the study found U.S.being inconsistent in the application of AGOA policy as an instrument on democracy promotion.This was demonstrated with continuous provisions of AGOA free trade benefits to Ethiopia and Angola which had poor democratic record,which is against AGOA policy criteria on eligible beneficiary country democratic standards.The two countries have had poor democratic record as captured in Freedom House ranking on quality of democracy which ranked them as ‘Not Free' by the year 2015.Although both countries had a promising start post their civil war history,they did not transition to democracy as expected but instead regressed through numerous undemocratic policies and practices.Consecutive elections in the two case studies have been used to legitimize respective regimes hold on power.Security interests on war against terrorism in horn Africa,explains why U.S.has been inconsistent in offering AGOA trade preferences to Ethiopia at the height of the country's democratic declines during 2005 to 2015 elections.The inconsistency of U.S.AGOA policy toward Angola on the other hand,is informed by U.S.interest in Angola's natural resources especially oil.Angola as a number two oil producer in the sub Sahara Africa exports more than 90% of its oil to U.S The strategic value U.S.places on Angola's oil explain why U.S.cannot expel Angola from AGOA policy provisions on democratic grounds.Burundi case is another country that has experience democratic reversal in post civil war era of national reconciliation and state reconstruction.However as opposed to Angola and Ethiopia cases,Burundi democratic reversal was met with U.S.sanctions and expulsion from AGOA free market provisions since 2015.This was at the height of the country's general elections of 2015 when Burundi's president Nkurunziza controversially contested for a third term in office which faced opposition from diverse quarters.U.S.played a major role in Burundi's 2015 crisis in line with her policy on democracy promotion,pressuring Burundi to adhere to democratic ideals on respect to constitution,good governance and human rights.Burundi had made some democratic progress from Arusha peace agreement which was later systematically undermined over the years.This saw the country regress in Freedom House ranking on quality of democratic freedom from ‘Partly Free' to ‘Not Free'.In 2015 elections,Burundi did not adhere to AGOA policy on democratic criteria hence president Obama expelling the country from AGOA framework.The expulsion was in consistent with U.S.policy use of AGOA policy as a tool to promote democracy in Sub Sahara African countries by expelling Sub-Saharan countries that fail to meet democratic standards and criteria.The inconsistency witnessed with the provisions of AGOA benefits to Ethiopia and Angola when the two countries fared poorly on democratic scores are as a result on clash of interests between democracy promotion and security and economic interest in the respective countries.Material interests of security and commercial/economic in Ethiopia and Angola respectively,explain why U.S.was inconsistent by continuously offering AGOA trade preference to the two countries while they did not necessarily qualify.However,the same cannot be said on Burundi case,which was expelled from AGOA provision on grounds of poor democratic record.It is this study argument that,as opposed to Ethiopia and Angola that serve U.S.strategic interests,Burundi was expelled from AGOA because the country does not serve U.S.any strategic material interest.The inconsistency witnessed in U.S.AGOA policy toward Africa matches hegemonic theory which postulates of a self interested hegemon that masks provision of public good as mutually beneficial,while in real sense pursues own interests.While AGOA policy looks to serve mutual interests of parties involved,when examined critically,the policy exists to serve U.S.hegemonic interests to consolidate dominance in the region and at the international stage.The inconsistency and hypocrisy witnessed undermines U.S.legitimacy claim and moral persuasion as a true defender of democratic governance in the world.From the study findings and conclusion,for meaningful Sub-Saharan trade export to U.S.,the study recommends for consideration in reviewing of AGOA policy to include agricultural products that many African countries enjoy comparative advantage for an increased trade relations.On democracy promotion,the study recommends that internal actors in Sub-Sahara Africa take a more active role in determining respective country democratic direction.Foreign actors like U.S.cannot be dependent upon as true democracy promoters in Africa,for they seem to be more guided by own interest as demonstrated in Ethiopia and Angola cases.True democracy can only be nurtured from within,with external support only when necessary.Finally,as AGOA policy years nears to its end and for future research,the study recommends for a quantitative research design to explore on the relationship on AGOA trade and democracy using large N sample of entire Sub Sahara Africa and for entire 25 years of AGOA lifespan.