Follow us on social

Alliance of Sahel States

Bad timing for an African trade war

The decision by the military-led Alliance of Sahel States to impose a 0.5% tariff on goods from rival ECOWAS nations has added a new twist in their rift

Analysis | Africa

The decision by the military-led Alliance of Sahel States to impose a 0.5% import duty on goods from the nations of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has added a new twist in the rift plaguing the West African bloc.

The tariff, which exempts only humanitarian aid, threatens to upend free trade and provoke retaliation, effectively creating a trade war within the region at a time when Africa’s exports to the crucial U.S. market face new challenges.

The Alliance of Sahel States (AES) comprises Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger — Sahelian countries racked by a wave of coups that overthrew pro-Western regimes between 2020 and 2023. Launched as a security pact formed in 2023 in response to ECOWAS’ threat to take military action to restore the democratic order in Niger, the AES has grown into a rival bloc with its own regional aspirations.

The AES countries have also switched international alliances by ending ties with their former colonial power, France, and expelling troops of other Western nations, including the United States, while befriending Russia from which it has received military support.

The AES trio is at the epicenter of jihadist violence that has rocked the entire Sahelian region. Last year, Washington closed a $100 million drone base and withdrew some 1,000 troops at Agadez in compliance with a demand by the junta in Niger. Strained relations with ECOWAS nations like Nigeria have also stalled joint military operations like the Multinational Joint Task Force that has mounted important counter-terrorism operations in the Lake Chad Basin.

Just last week, Niger dumped French and announced Hausa as its new official national language, following a pattern already set by neighboring Burkina Faso. The three countries have also pulled out of the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie, but, curiously, retained their membership in the West African Economic and Monetary Union (UEMOA/WAEMU), which means they remain tied, through the common CFA franc currency, to France’s sphere of influence.

The new tariff is the AES’ most audacious economic measure yet. It has the potential to escalate the price of food and other essential commodities while disrupting trade flows across the region.

“I could imagine a slowdown in demand by AES consumers for certain ECOWAS goods,” Danielle Resnick, a Senior Research Fellow at International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), told RS. But the impact could be much worse for the alliance member states, which are already among the world’s poorest nations, she noted. “Adding this tariff will increase the price of imports, including food, for their consumers.”.

The three AES countries are all classified as a major global hunger hotspot with a significant portion of their populations experiencing food insecurity and acute hunger in early 2025. Both Burkina Faso and Niger rely on their ECOWAS neighbors – Ghana, Cote D’Ivoire and Nigeria – to meet their food and electricity needs.

Compared to ECOWAS’s total GDP of $2.091 trillion, the AES can boast a combined GDP of only $62 billion.

At the same time, the three AES countries are landlocked; hence their heavy reliance on imports via ports controlled by their ECOWAS neighbors. In 2022, for example, 92% of the cargo unloaded at the port of Lomé, Togo, was destined for Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso. This makes them especially vulnerable to any counter-measures the ECOWAS nations may choose to take in retaliation for the AES’s new levy.

In 2023, when ECOWAS countries closed their borders and cut vital supply to Niger, the country was nearly brought to its knees.

Nevertheless, the AES tariff on its own is not so large as to disproportionately divert trade. ECOWAS countries can easily navigate the headwinds it might bring by diversifying its export markets. “Another scenario is that ECOWAS retaliates with its own import duties,” Resnick noted.

Given the truculent character of key actors on both sides of the divide, as well as the geopolitical dynamics behind the rift, this scenario – amounting in effect to a trade war – cannot be ruled out.

But this will only make a bad situation worse. A regional trade war is the worst possible scenario at a time when Africa is bracing for the consequences of U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariff plans and their implications for world trade. Trump has levied a 10% baseline tariff on all U.S. trading partners and an additional 14% tariff on countries that charge higher tariff rates on American goods, although the latter has now been suspended for 90 days.

The new tariffs affect African countries like Nigeria, South Africa and Kenya, whose exports to the U.S. have enjoyed preferential treatment under the U.S. flagship trade program, the African Growth and Opportunities Act (AGOA).

Since 2000, AGOA has helped eligible sub-Saharan African countries export about 6,400 products duty-free to the U.S., leading to the growth of local manufacturing while creating between 300,000 direct and 1.3 million indirect jobs in its first decade. The new U.S. tariffs means the future of this important cornerstone of U.S.-Africa relations now hangs in the balance.

As of this moment, it is unclear whether AGOA will be renewed when it expires at the end of September.

If so, Africa’s exports to the U.S. will lose their competitive edge and decline in the longer run. The effects would be uneven, but the most devastating impacts would be felt in Lesotho, Mauritius and Madagascar, all of which host significant apparel industries that are highly reliant on the U.S. market. Overall, the U.S. is Africa’s third largest trading partner, after China and the EU. In 2022 alone, the value of ECOWAS exports to the U.S. came to $9.4 billion, up 38.8% from the previous year.

With its large population and a combined GDP of $2 trillion, sub-Saharan Africa possesses the wherewithal to absorb some of the worst impacts of the growing global trade crisis. To do so, however, it must better develop its internal market, a difficult prospect given the history of sometimes acrimonious relations among African countries that have hindered the realization of the goals of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA).

As a result, African countries trade more outside the continent than within it. For example, intra-African trade in 2023 stood at $192.2 billion, just 14.9% of total African trade, and the global share of intra-African exports and imports actually declined from 14.5% in 2021 to 13.7% in 2022. Within the region, intra-ECOWAS trade stood at less than 12% in 2023 of total trade by member countries.

The unfolding crisis in global trade calls for Africa to strengthen itself by leveraging the immense potential that exists for creating a single continental market encompassing 54 countries with a combined nominal GDP of $3.4 trillion.

To reach that potential and remove all barriers to continental free trade, AfCFTA’s ambition will require far more cooperation and commitment than has been evident to date. A trade war between AES and ECOWAS goes in the opposite direction.


Top photo credit: A man with his face and body painted, celebrating the Alliance of Sahel States, is seen at the Festival sur le Niger, also known as Segou'Art, as it occurs in the wake of Mali and its neighbours Niger and Burkina Faso leaving the Economic Community of West Africa States (ECOWAS), in Segou, Mali February 6, 2025. REUTERS/Aboubacar Traore
Analysis | Africa
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Bombers astray! Washington's priorities go off course

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.


keep readingShow less
Trump Zelensky
Top photo credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Blob exploiting Trump's anger with Putin, risking return to Biden's war

Europe

Donald Trump’s recent outburst against Vladimir Putin — accusing the Russian leader of "throwing a pile of bullsh*t at us" and threatening devastating new sanctions — might be just another Trumpian tantrum.

The president is known for abrupt reversals. Or it could be a bargaining tactic ahead of potential Ukraine peace talks. But there’s a third, more troubling possibility: establishment Republican hawks and neoconservatives, who have been maneuvering to hijack Trump’s “America First” agenda since his return to office, may be exploiting his frustration with Putin to push for a prolonged confrontation with Russia.

Trump’s irritation is understandable. Ukraine has accepted his proposed ceasefire, but Putin has refused, making him, in Trump’s eyes, the main obstacle to ending the war.

Putin’s calculus is clear. As Ted Snider notes in the American Conservative, Russia is winning on the battlefield. In June, it captured more Ukrainian territory and now threatens critical Kyiv’s supply lines. Moscow also seized a key lithium deposit critical to securing Trump’s support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian missile and drone strikes have intensified.

Putin seems convinced his key demands — Ukraine’s neutrality, territorial concessions in the Donbas and Crimea, and a downsized Ukrainian military — are more achievable through war than diplomacy.

Yet his strategy empowers the transatlantic “forever war” faction: leaders in Britain, France, Germany, and the EU, along with hawks in both main U.S. parties. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz claims that diplomacy with Russia is “exhausted.” Europe’s war party, convinced a Russian victory would inevitably lead to an attack on NATO (a suicidal prospect for Moscow), is willing to fight “to the last Ukrainian.” Meanwhile, U.S. hawks, including liberal interventionist Democrats, stoke Trump’s ego, framing failure to stand up to Putin’s defiance as a sign of weakness or appeasement.

Trump long resisted this pressure. Pragmatism told him Ukraine couldn’t win, and calling it “Biden’s war” was his way of distancing himself, seeking a quick exit to refocus on China, which he has depicted as Washington’s greater foreign threat. At least as important, U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine has been unpopular with his MAGA base.

But his June strikes on Iran may signal a hawkish shift. By touting them as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program (despite Tehran’s refusal so far to abandon uranium enrichment), Trump may be embracing a new approach to dealing with recalcitrant foreign powers: offer a deal, set a deadline, then unleash overwhelming force if rejected. The optics of “success” could tempt him to try something similar with Russia.

This pivot coincides with a media campaign against restraint advocates within the administration like Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon policy chief who has prioritized China over Ukraine and also provoked the opposition of pro-Israel neoconservatives by warning against war with Iran. POLITICO quoted unnamed officials attacking Colby for wanting the U.S. to “do less in the world.” Meanwhile, the conventional Republican hawk Marco Rubio’s influence grows as he combines the jobs of both secretary of state and national security adviser.

What Can Trump Actually Do to Russia?
 

Nuclear deterrence rules out direct military action — even Biden, far more invested in Ukraine than Trump, avoided that risk. Instead, Trump ally Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another establishment Republican hawk, is pushing a 500% tariff on nations buying Russian hydrocarbons, aiming to sever Moscow from the global economy. Trump seems supportive, although the move’s feasibility and impact are doubtful.

China and India are key buyers of Russian oil. China alone imports 12.5 million barrels daily. Russia exports seven million barrels daily. China could absorb Russia’s entire output. Beijing has bluntly stated it “cannot afford” a Russian defeat, ensuring Moscow’s economic lifeline remains open.

The U.S., meanwhile, is ill-prepared for a tariff war with China. When Trump imposed 145% tariffs, Beijing retaliated by cutting off rare earth metals exports, vital to U.S. industry and defense. Trump backed down.

At the G-7 summit in Canada last month, the EU proposed lowering price caps on Russian oil from $60 a barrel to $45 a barrel as part of its 18th sanctions package against Russia. Trump rejected the proposal at the time but may be tempted to reconsider, given his suggestion that more sanctions may be needed. Even if Washington backs the measure now, however, it is unlikely to cripple Russia’s war machine.

Another strategy may involve isolating Russia by peeling away Moscow’s traditionally friendly neighbors. Here, Western mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan isn’t about peace — if it were, pressure would target Baku, which has stalled agreements and threatened renewed war against Armenia. The real goal is to eject Russia from the South Caucasus and create a NATO-aligned energy corridor linking Turkey to Central Asia, bypassing both Russia and Iran to their detriment.

Central Asia itself is itself emerging as a new battleground. In May 2025, the EU has celebrated its first summit with Central Asian nations in Uzbekistan, with a heavy focus on developing the Middle Corridor, a route for transportation of energy and critical raw materials that would bypass Russia. In that context, the EU has committed €10 billion in support of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.

keep readingShow less
Syria sanctions
Top image credit: People line up to buy bread, after Syria's Bashar al-Assad was ousted, in Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria December 23, 2024. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Lifting sanctions on Syria exposes their cruel intent

Middle East

On June 30, President Trump signed an executive order terminating the majority of U.S. sanctions on Syria. The move, which would have been unthinkable mere months ago, fulfilled a promise he made at an investment forum in Riyadh in May.“The sanctions were brutal and crippling,” he had declared to an audience of primarily Saudi businessmen. Lifting them, he said, will “give Syria a chance at greatness.”

The significance of this statement lies not solely in the relief that it will bring to the Syrian people. His remarks revealed an implicit but rarely admitted truth: sanctions — often presented as a peaceful alternative to war — have been harming the Syrian people all along.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.