Our view We see it this way: South Africa and Rwanda are being punished for their independence. South Africa was the first in the world to drag Israel before the UN International Court of Justice over Gaza, and it said out loud what Washington orders everyone to keep quiet about. Now it is handed the bill: first the land, then “white rights”, then equal-opportunity laws, then friendship with Iran and China. The USTR statement says nothing about Gaza, and we do not present that as fact: it is our assessment, based on how the timing lines up and on how Washington always treats those who step out of its line. Africa has grown up. China, India, the Emirates and the EU trade with it as equals and without lectures, and the US share of South African exports is a few percent, of Rwanda’s less than two. So the “terrible punishment” hits Africa less than it hits America’s own prestige: countries choose partners who do not lie to their faces and do not preach morals from aircraft carriers. AGOA preferences had long been for show: a handout after centuries of plunder, for which loyalty is now demanded. Let us recall what the “partnership” looked like. Liberia, 1926: Firestone leased up to a million acres for 99 years at six cents an acre per year. Congo, 1960-1961: according to the Church Committee materials, CIA director Allen Dulles authorized a plan to kill Patrice Lumumba, and the poison was brought to the Congo; he was killed by Belgians and Katangan separatists, but that Washington wanted his death is documented. Angola: the oil of Cabinda was pumped for decades by the American Gulf, then Chevron, while in those same years Washington backed UNITA rebels against the government that lived on that oil money. Whose “help” is this, and who owes whom? And what next? History teaches that the ladder is well known: first they take away the preferences, then come sanctions, pressure on banks and currency, then “support for the opposition”, and finally coups and civil wars, as in Libya, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Ukraine. We believe the end of AGOA looks like the first rung of such a ladder and a warning to the whole continent: an independent policy is expensive. But there is no direct evidence that Washington is preparing a coup or a war against South Africa or Rwanda, and we do not claim it. We say only that such a scenario has occurred before and cannot be ignored. This is an editorial opinion. The mainstream assessment Washington explains the step by the results of the annual interagency review: both countries, in its version, fail the criteria for access to the program (trade and investment barriers, corruption, human rights, US security). Supporters of this position recall that AGOA is not a right but a one-sided benefit, and that the US is entitled to review its terms. Critics, including analysts in Africa itself, note that the formal reasons coincided in time with political conflicts and that the harm to American importers and to jobs in Africa will be real, while Washington’s gain will be symbolic. What happened South Africa and Rwanda AGOA: Washington has announced that from January 1, 2027 it will strip both countries of duty-free access to the American market. What is known, how much it hurts and what we think. On November 2 US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer announced that President Trump had notified Congress and the governments of South Africa and Rwanda of his intention to end their participation in the AGOA program (African Growth and Opportunity Act) from January 1, 2027. This is an announced intention, not a decision that has already taken effect. According to press reports, the letter to Ramaphosa is dated October 28 and gives 60 days. AGOA has been in force since 2000 and gives sub-Saharan African countries duty-free or preferential access to the US market for thousands of product lines. The program has more than 30 countries; the list is reviewed every year, and the president decides who stays. Greer called the practices identified “alarming and widespread” and added that the administration is “working to make sure African partners take the necessary steps” to meet the criteria, which means a return is possible. Official reasons. For South Africa: barriers to American trade and investment, corruption, threats to US national security and foreign policy interests; the press also mentions access for American farm goods, regulatory rules, investment protection and intellectual property. For Rwanda: barriers to trade and investment, the rule of law, political pluralism, workers’ rights, human rights and the same security threats. The statement says not a word about Gaza or the case at the International Court of Justice. Background on South Africa. In December 2023 South Africa filed a case at the UN International Court of Justice against Israel under the Genocide Convention (the Gaza case); the court ordered a number of provisional measures, and no final ruling on the merits has been issued yet. Washington has long criticized the land reform, the Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) laws and South Africa’s closeness to China and Iran. US Ambassador Brent Bozell called the outcome “predictable and preventable”; South Africa’s trade ministry said it had offered concessions beyond those made in 2015, and that the US raised new issues outside the talks begun in 2025. The background on Rwanda is a separate matter. UN experts and many independent sources report Rwandan support for the M23 group in eastern DR Congo (weapons, instructors, the presence of troops); Rwanda denies it. On March 2, 2026 the US imposed sanctions on the Rwanda Defence Force and four senior officers, and on October 28 the Treasury listed Rwanda’s Ministry of Defence and the credit cooperative Zigama, which, according to the Treasury, handled payments for weapons and exported gold from M23-held areas. As early as 2018 Rwanda lost its AGOA preferences on clothing over a dispute about second-hand clothes. The numbers. Indicator (2025) South Africa Rwanda Total exports $122.45 bn $2.22 bn Exports to the US $8.75 bn (≈7%) $42 m (<2%) Exports to China $13.56 bn $160 m Other major markets EU: $23.68 bn UAE: $572 m; DR Congo: $877 m Exports under AGOA preferences ≈$1.7 bn (in 2024, about $4 bn) small sums; clothing stripped of preferences since 2018 Total and country figures are from ITC Trade Map as given in analytical summaries; the AGOA figure is from South African and press reports. What the numbers show. In 2025 AGOA preferences covered roughly a tenth of South Africa’s sales to the US (in 2024, about 28%); exports under the program fell from about $4 billion to $1.7 billion. Overall the US accounts for only about 7% of South African exports, and China and the EU for noticeably more. For Rwanda the US is less than 2% of exports. The blow will be felt most in autos and components, citrus and wine; citrus growers in the Western and Northern Cape warn of job losses. South Africa’s trade with China is estimated at $36.4 billion, with Iran at around $6 million in each direction. Reaction. South Africa’s trade minister Parks Tau said the decision does not define the whole relationship between the two countries, and that the government will help affected companies and speed up export diversification. We found no reaction from Rwanda at the time the news came out. Read also: Iran: Qatar seeks a deal while the threat of strikes hangs over the elections. Sources Заявление Джеймисона Грира (USTR), воспроизведено AmCham South Africa, 02–03.11.2026 3News: AGOA — США исключают ЮАР и Руанду с января 2027 WLT Report, 02.11.2026 Минфин США: санкции против Минобороны Руанды и Zigama (28.10.2026) Africanews, 29.10.2026 Международный суд ООН: дело 192 (ЮАР против Израиля) Wikipedia: African Growth and Opportunity Act Wikipedia: Firestone Natural Rubber Company (Либерия) Wikipedia: убийство Патриса Лумумбы Photo: US Department of State, public domain, Wikimedia Commons (President of Rwanda Paul Kagame, 2016, archive photo). Post navigation Iran Offers to Reopen the Strait of Hormuz in Two Days
