In slamming Mexico with a high reciprocal tariff—which has now been suspended for 90 days—the President of the United States of America, Donald J. Trump, did not take into consideration the provisions in the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which precludes member countries from being levied tariffs on certain products.

Upon discovering the breach, Mexico pointed it out to the US, and promptly, the concern was addressed with the USMCA exemption recognized and the aberration corrected.

Like the USMCA, the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), introduced in 2000 under President Bill Clinton’s administration, grants African countries exemptions from paying tariffs on some items exported to the US.

With the 10% across-the-board tariff that the US has imposed on all her trading partners worldwide—and the reciprocal tariffs (currently paused for three months) that raised tariffs on Nigerian goods to 14%, and up to 50% for a small African country like Lesotho—the US may have breached the AGOA pact with Africa.

So, the question is: has Africa, like Mexico, approached the US to inform her that the AGOA arrangement has been breached, so that an adjustment can be made accordingly, in the same manner that a similar breach of USMCA was addressed when it was brought to the US’s attention?

That task squarely falls within the purview of the African Union (AU); it is a responsibility that rests directly on its shoulders.

If peradventure, Africa has not yet made that move via the AU, the 90-day pause announced by President Trump is a veritable window for the pan-African organization to engage with the relevant authorities in the US to resolve the matter.

That said, at this juncture, it is appropriate that we take a look at Africa’s uninspiring place in the world order and try to figure out how to reposition the continent to become a more active player in the new global trade framework being reshaped by President Trump through his sweeping tariff changes.

In identifying Africa’s place in the new world trade order being unfurled and wrought by President Trump—through trade tariffs that have disrupted global trade in ways that may become unrecognizable to old-school aficionados—it is imperative to put the unfolding scenario in historical context.

As we all would agree, from the Berlin Conference of 1884–85 where Africa was partitioned among European powers, to today’s Africa where the likes of Tony Elumelu, chairman of UBA/Heirs Holdings is promoting Africapitalism (a vision for African entrepreneurs to develop the continent by intentionally investing in its abundant resources to bring prosperity to communities), European exploration and exploitation of Africa has a long and complex history.

For a deep dive into how entrenched the European and other superpowers’ interests in Africa have become, here is a breakdown of key historical milestones:

Going back to the Ancient Era, the Phoenicians—a civilization from the eastern Mediterranean—are believed to have explored North Africa and possibly even circumnavigated the African continent around 600 BC. It is believed they established colonies, with Carthage being the most notable.

In the Medieval Period, during the Viking expeditions of the 9th century, North African Mediterranean coastal towns were also raided.

Then came the Portuguese explorers in the 13th–14th centuries. Genoese navigators such as Vandino and Ugolino Vivaldi attempted to find a sea route to India around Africa in 1291. Thereafter, Jaume Ferrer sailed down the West African coast in search of the legendary “River of Gold” in 1346.

That expedition was followed by the Age of Discovery explorations in the 15th century when the Portuguese—led by Prince Henry the Navigator—pioneered maritime exploration. That was when explorers like Bartolomeu Dias reached the Cape of Good Hope in 1488, and Vasco da Gama successfully navigated to India via Africa in 1498. All of the above is what many of us learned in European history classes during our formative years in school, right? One is going down memory lane because to truly understand the marginalization of Africa in the scheme of things by the rest of the world, we must recall and place these historical realities in perspective.

It was not until much later that other European powers such as the Dutch, English, French, and others soon followed, establishing trading posts and colonies along the African coast.

In light of the above and based on historical records, European exploration of Africa’s interior did not gain momentum until the 19th century, with explorers like David Livingstone and Henry Morton Stanley mapping the continent’s geography and “discovering” new regions.

For this discourse, we will stay focused on the exploitation of the African continent by foreign invaders since the time of Livingstone et al.

Following the arrival of European explorers in Africa in the 19th century, and especially after World War I, the continent has been actively and continuously pillaged by fortune seekers from other continents—particularly Europe, North and South America, and Asia.

Specifically, Africa’s exclusion from productive trade was entrenched as far back as 1884/85, when then-German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck hosted the Berlin Conference, during which European powers carved up Africa without inviting a single African representative to the table.

After the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade—which occurred between the 16th and 19th centuries, during which roughly 10–12 million Africans were shipped as slaves to the Americas in a trading system where African slaves were exchanged by Europeans for American products such as coffee and sugar, which were then shipped back to Europe—these Western powers transitioned from being slave traders to colonizers.

Unsurprisingly, the European colonizers lingered to further extract solid and rare earth minerals abundant in Africa—an unfair trade practice that remains in play to this day.

Unlike the countries in the Southern Hemisphere, which the Europeans were also scrambling to colonize but which were fortunate enough to benefit from the ‘Big Brother’ protection of the Monroe Doctrine—a U.S. foreign policy enacted in 1823, wherein then-President James Monroe prohibited further European colonization of countries in the Western Hemisphere—Africa was left unprotected. As such, the continent remained exposed to the insatiable greed of European powers.

The original version of the Monroe Doctrine also prohibited the marauding Europeans from further colonization of other countries universally including other hemispheres, particularly Africa. 

But it was then Secretary of State John Quincy Adams citing a lack of capacity to enforce the law globally that advised President Monroe to confine the proclamation to the Western hemisphere which was near. Otherwise, perhaps the Europeans would have been discouraged from partitioning and colonizing Africa in 1844/5 in the manner they did, as it occurred over 20 years after the Monroe Doctrine was instituted.

With no ‘big brother’ protecting Africa, the Europeans greedily ravaged Africa and the exploitation has been so overwhelming that countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)—blessed with abundant rare earth resources needed for manufacturing high-tech products—owing to unbridled exploitation have remained ground zero for armed conflicts. Even fellow African countries like Rwanda have joined the scramble for Congo’s resources, which have been exploited continuously for at least a century. The scenario described above is a classical case of unfair trade. 

Incidentally, the justification for President Trump’s ongoing tariff war includes not only an effort to stem the illicit drug fentanyl from entering the U.S. but also to correct what he considers unfair trade practices by the rest of the world against the United States. So, with its economic and military clout as the world’s global hegemon, and under the leadership of a bold and unorthodox President Trump—who was voted into power based on his reputation as a change agent, although a political outsider—the U.S. is using tariffs to fight for balanced trade with its partners.

But from the narrative about trade between Africa and other continents, as earlier highlighted, it is disheartening and disappointing that Africa has been a perennial and perpetual victim of unfair trade. Sadly, the continent lacks the clout to fight for itself, as the U.S. is currently doing.

Operating in an unstructured—and some may say ungoverned—environment, where six (6) countries (Niger, Burkina Faso, Chad, Guinea, Mali, and Sudan), mostly located in the Sahel region, have reverted from democratic governance to military dictatorships, forging a common front to assert herself as a unified continent has remained a mirage since the time of the founding fathers of the Organization of African Unity (OAU)—Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, Nnamdi Azikiwe of Nigeria, Julius Nyerere of Tanzania, among others—who convened in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia in 1963.

Although the OAU was later renamed the African Union (AU) in Durban, South Africa in 2002—likely inspired by the somewhat successful European Union (EU)—the change was largely nominal. The continental body has never been able to transform Africa into a powerful trading bloc like the EU.

Instead, the continent has remained a mere source of raw materials and not a producer of value-added products that could have engendered prosperity for its people when it becomes the new manufacturing hub for the US.

Perhaps the recently formed African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) will make a difference by triggering the desired positive change.

In a previous article titled “What If President Trump Wants to Shift From Aid to Trade?”, I explored the possibility that Trump might replace aid to Africa—which he has begun to roll back—with trade. I argued that Africa needs trade, not aid.

That prospect is not far-fetched. The continent is increasingly being seen by forward-thinking investors as the next frontier for development. But with trade between industrialized nations now restricted by Trump’s tariffs, one wonders:

Will Africa become the dumping ground for goods that advanced economies can no longer trade among themselves?

If so, would this not further hinder industrialization on the continent? On the flip side, could this trade standoff prompt the U.S. and others to manufacture in Africa instead of relying on China and Vietnam—countries hit by the heaviest tariffs?

Given Africa’s closer proximity to the U.S. via the Atlantic Ocean (compared to Asia via the Pacific), the continent—especially Nigeria—could become a strategic manufacturing base. This possibility gains weight with the U.S. currently building its largest embassy in the world at Eko Atlantic, located on the shores of Bar Beach–Atlantic Ocean in Victoria Island, Lagos.

Signs of a Strategic Shift

The recent appointment of Mr. Massad Boulos, former Group Managing Director of SCOA Nigeria Plc, as Senior Special Adviser to President Trump on Africa affirms growing optimism that Africa will be a focal point for U.S. economic cooperation.

My self being a board member of SCOA Plc and chairman of its Audit Committee since 2012, I can guarantee that Mr. Boulos is a veritable asset to the U.S. and will make a great and positive impact for the benefit of both the U.S. and Africa. He knows the continent inside out, having worked with the SCOA Group—an organization that has existed for nearly a century with a massive Africa-wide footprint.

Already, Mr. Boulos has initiated meetings with the Presidents of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Kenya, Uganda, and Nigeria to promote peace in conflict zones and foster mutually beneficial economic partnerships.

For too long, as earlier stated, Africa has been sidelined in global trade value chains—operating on the fringes due to unfair trade practices entrenched during the colonial era, which saw the continent become an extension of European empires.

Even after gaining political independence, beginning in the mid-1950s, Africa has remained marginal in global trade—accounting for less than 3% of global trade volume.

Yet Africa is resource-rich:

 • 30% of the world’s mineral reserves

 • 40% of global gold reserves

 • 90% of global platinum and chromium

 • Over 10% of global oil reserves

 • 65% of the world’s arable land

 • 60% of the world’s uncultivated fertile land

 • A population of 1.539 billion as of March 2025, representing 18.83% of the global population (estimated at 8.1 billion)

If Africa is to thrive in the emerging world order, it must seize this moment not as a threat, but as a strategic opportunity to renegotiate its place in global trade—by adding value, fostering local production, and becoming an active partner in global manufacturing and economic integration.

Using the recently released Forbes list of billionaires for 2025 as a barometer of Africa’s global standing, there are a record 3,028 billionaires on this year’s list. Their combined wealth totals a record $16.1 trillion. Yet, only twenty-three (23) of them are Black. Alhaji Aliko Dangote remains the richest Black man on earth. Other Nigerians on the list include Chief Mike Adenuga, Alhaji Samad Rabiu, and Mr. Femi Otedola—who all reside in Nigeria—while Mr. Bayo Ogunlesi and Mr. Tope Awotona, also Nigerians, live outside the continent.

The 23 Black billionaires account for just 0.8% of the total wealth of the world’s 3,028 billionaires. Effectively, less than 1% of the world’s billionaire wealth is held by Black individuals—and even less by Africans living on the continent.

Based on Forbes figures, these 23 Black billionaires have a combined wealth of only $96.2 billion—less than $100 billion—a mere drop in the ocean compared to the $16.1 trillion owned by the remaining 3,005 billionaires, mostly in industrialized and advanced societies.

Apart from its vast mineral wealth, Africa holds a global comparative advantage in agriculture. However, subsidies provided by industrialized nations to their farmers significantly neutralize any potential gains for African producers. For instance, eggs that were once produced in excess in the U.S. used to be dumped locally or even thrown into the ocean during gluts, rather than being exported to famine-stricken areas in Africa—especially in the Horn of Africa—where people have died from hunger-related diseases. Ironically, the U.S. is now experiencing an egg shortage. Hopefully, when the egg surplus returns, the U.S. will remember to ship excess produce to Africa, where the need is dire. This is especially critical given that the continent is increasingly unable to feed itself due to unfair global trade practices orchestrated by powerful players in the developed world.

Against the backdrop of Trump’s ongoing reciprocal high-tariff upheavals, one might have thought this would be an opportunity to bring Africa more squarely into the global trade framework—especially now, as a new world order seems to be emerging under Trump.

Take, for example, the case of avocados. High tariffs imposed on Mexico—currently the largest supplier of avocados to the U.S.—have created a supply gap. Africa, also a major grower of avocados, could potentially fill that gap under a tariff-free framework such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), introduced by President Bill Clinton in 2000. AGOA significantly boosted trade between the U.S. and Africa’s 54 nations.

Unfortunately, that might no longer be the case. That is because as earlier noted, AGOA which has been in practice for 25 years seems to have been sidelined under the current administration’s reciprocal tariff regime. Unless the seeming breach is rectified.

What remains Africa’s biggest handicap in becoming a manufacturing hub for U.S.-bound exports is the lack of infrastructure. This, coupled with financing deficits and debt traps, has made the continent less attractive compared to Asian countries such as Vietnam, Malaysia, and Thailand, which are now thriving manufacturing hubs serving the U.S. market. Vietnam, for instance, has been hit with tariffs as high as 46%.

The industrialization of these countries is the result of a ripple effect—an economic radiance originating in Japan and China, spreading outward to nations like Vietnam, Indonesia, and Malaysia. These countries now orbit as stars around the moons of Japan and China within Asia’s industrial ecosystem.

The U.S. could intentionally choose to industrialize Africa. The continent’s lack of industrial capacity underscored by energy insecurity could be mitigated by fixing its chronic electricity shortages. Africa possesses abundant untapped energy potential—from hydropower and solar to wind and biomass—even without considering nuclear power. Elon Musk has already developed battery pack technology capable of powering entire cities, tested successfully in Australia. Why not introduce it to Africa?

While the world is in the midst of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, Africa missed out on the first two. However, the continent caught up during the third—the telecoms revolution—by skipping telephone landlines and going straight to mobile technology, thanks to GSM. Similarly, Musk’s super battery packs could revolutionize Africa’s power sector in much the same way.

These are ideas worth considering by President Trump, the leader of the world’s most powerful and wealthiest nation, and Elon Musk, the world’s richest man.

During this tariff war, the Director-General of the World Trade Organization, Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, made the following remarks at a Commonwealth event in London on March 31:

 “Amidst all this turbulence, what is still good is that there is still $24 trillion of goods trade. The U.S. accounts for 13–16% of world exports, and China 15%. If 75% of trade is still going on outside the U.S. and China, it means there’s a world out there trading within itself, coming together to reaffirm support for the system. So, take a deep breath—let’s preserve what works… But when you throw out retaliation, it just goes back and forth.”

Her non-retaliatory stance appears to be the most pragmatic way forward.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent echoed this sentiment after President Trump announced the new tariffs in the White House Rose Garden, urging affected countries not to engage in tit-for-tat retaliation. The nations that heeded his advice had the tariff paused so it is only China that retaliated with a 125% tariff against the US the 145% has been operationalized.

To lend my voice, I believe EU President Ursula von der Leyen should prioritize dialogue with President Trump and his team—who are intent on remaking the global trade order—instead of adopting a combative stance. The objective should be mutual compromise.

President Trump does have a valid argument when he claims that the U.S. has been exploited through trade imbalances and security expenditures—particularly in its relationships with Europe. The high reciprocal tariffs, according to him, are a correction of those long-standing disparities.

Even Jens Stoltenberg, the immediate past NATO chief, acknowledged that Trump’s tough stance during his first term prompted most NATO members to meet their financial obligations—a clear “Trump effect.”

From a global security perspective, one could argue that the U.S., as the longstanding global hegemon, has carried the burden of maintaining world order—which may have justified its earlier trade concessions. President Trump is now reversing those concessions.

After the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), Russia—the main remnant—has struggled to match U.S. dominance in either economic or military terms. The Cold War, which once divided the world between a communist East and a capitalist West, ended with the U.S.-led West as the undisputed superpower.

Now, China—currently the world’s second-largest economy—is consolidating its regional power. It has reclaimed Hong Kong from the UK, and now eyes Taiwan, which claims independence. One would think China would first solidify control over its region before challenging the U.S. on the global stage. While President Xi Jinping has extended olive branches to neighboring nations like Vietnam, Malaysia, and Cambodia through a “neighborhood diplomacy” initiative, tensions with Taiwan have escalated lately, as evidenced by a recent military maneuver.

Still, against all odds and perhaps out of national pride, China has stated that while it won’t raise tariffs further, it is not afraid and in my view, it appears it remains open to negotiation.

In the meantime, the U.S.—unopposed in its superpower status—continues to shape the world according to its vision. Nevertheless, President Trump has paused his reciprocal tariffs for 90 days, ostensibly to allow room for negotiations by the over 60 nations hit with the reciprocal tariffs. While some critics argue he panicked due to the negative bond market and ordinary people's reactions, I believe he’s acting strategically—seeking a win, not a war without an end.

All said and done, the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, is originally from South Africa. Morally, he should fight for Africa, leveraging his immense wealth and global influence. Given his concern about land disputes in South Africa, it’s clear Musk cares about the continent. All he needs to do is broaden his scope to include the “rainbow coalition” (black and white people) across Africa—widely recognized as the world’s next frontier.

If Tony Elumelu can commit $100 million in ten years through his foundation, TEF to empower African youth across 54 countries with entrepreneurial skills and start-up seed money, there’s no reason why Musk cannot dedicate $1 billion to provide electricity to Africa—powering industrialization and creating new prosperity on the continent of his birth.

After all, Africa—as economists have confirmed—is not an aid case. It is a land of untapped potential.

The bottom line is this: Africa needs industrialization and trade, not aid. And both President Trump, leader of the world’s most powerful country, and Elon Musk, the world’s wealthiest man, can make it happen.

Musk has already explored the unknown in space with his SpaceX program. Now it’s time to explore Africa—for real, and for good.

I would like to conclude by restating the fact that, Africa beckons President Trump and Elon Musk.

Magnus Onyibe, an entrepreneur, public policy analyst, and author.