It's not necessarily a legitimate bone but more of a beef. I have always seen AGOA sold as some altruistic gesture by the US.
The duty-free component may certainly be viewed as "altruistic". But AGOA is more than that; it is intended to help only those Africans who behave themselves, as indicated by the conditions for eligibility:
market-based economies; the rule of law and political pluralism; elimination of barriers to U.S. trade and investment; protection of intellectual property; efforts to combat corruption; policies to reduce poverty, increasing availability of health care and educational opportunities; protection of human rights and worker rights; and elimination of certain child labor practices.
Indeed, if you look at the countries that have been completely thrown out of AGOA---CAR, Eritrea, DRC, etc.---it has largely been for bad behavior, rather than trade issues. South Sudan did not last very long, and Burundi is looking at suspension in 2016.
Obama could just as easily ignore the South African restrictions given the relatively tiny impact this market has on the US. In the spirit of helping an African. But he seems to go at them hammer and tongs like his life depended on it. He is obviously entitled to do what he is doing. But a case he could have looked the other way without really harming either party.
(1) No, he could
not ignore it. If you followed the debate that preceded the AGOA renewal in June this year and the subsequent passing of the bill, it was very clear that something had to be done about South Africa:
The US Senate has voted, by 97 to 1, to renew the Act but with strict terms for South Africa.
http://www.sabc.co.za/news/a/45e4ac804862d71aabcdef1b3b18eadf/US-votes-in-favour-of-renewal-of-AGOA-with-strict-terms-20151505The real clincher is in the bill finally agreed to by Senate and House of Reps and signed by Obama: Sec. 105 makes it quite clear that something has to be done about South Africa. Another thing is that this is being paraded as an issue about poultry and suchlike stuff; in fact, the extension debate showed that USA companies have a long list of complaints, of which meat is just one. Plus there is the fact that SA did agree to meet certain "meat commitments" by mid-October this year, but then seems to have done nothing in that regard.
(2) Obama is in fact being quite "nice" and giving the South Africans yet more time to deal with issues that they have long been aware of. In his letter:
I am providing 60-day advance notification of my intent to suspend ...
I have determined that such suspension of benefits would be more effective in promoting compliance by South Africa with the eligibility requirements listed in section 104 of AGOA than the termination of South Africa's designation as a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country, as it would better promote continuing efforts between the United States and South Africa to resolve these outstanding issues.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/11/05/letter-president-suspension-application-duty-free-treatment-all-agoa(3) The South Africans has not even been suspended from AGOA! All Obama's letter says is that he is
thinking of suspending them. That's quite different from the sharp treatment that some countries got (before and in Obama's time) and hardly what I would consider "
hammer and tongs like his life depended on it". What's more, the US Trade Representative seems to be hinting that they probably won't be suspended anyway.
Topic: Pundit, Obama And Africa (Read 3317 times)