Rwanda, DRC agree on outline of economic framework for peace deal
The tenets agreed on Friday summarise the framework, which includes elements of cooperation on energy, infrastructure, mineral supply chains, national parks and public health, the state department said in a statement.
Rwanda and DRC signed a peace deal in Washington in June at talks held by US President Donald Trump's administration, which aims to bring an end to fighting that has killed thousands and attract billions of dollars of Western investment to a region rich in tantalum, gold, cobalt, copper, lithium and other minerals.
As part of the deal, Kinshasa and Kigali agreed to launch a regional economic integration framework within 90 days, the agreement said.
A source familiar with the matter said a preliminary draft of the framework has been agreed to and there would now be an input period to get reaction from the private sector and civil society before it is finalised.
The framework is planned to be signed at a meeting of heads of state at the White House. No date has been set yet for that meeting, the source said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
26 minutes ago
- IOL News
Economists warn of job losses as US tariffs threaten South African trade
The South African sugar industry is facing the threat of collapsing and job losses as a result of US President Donald Trump imposing 30% tariffs on the country's exports. Image: Karen Sandison / Independent Newspapers In the wake of the recent 30% tariff hike imposed by the United States, South Africa's sugar and automotive industries are bracing for significant upheaval. Economists warn that these tariffs could spell disaster for local businesses, jeopardising exports and leading to alarming job losses. An economist has warned that losing the market will collapse the industry after President Donald Trump's 30% tariff hike imposed on goods exported to the country's second biggest trade partner. Economist Miyelani Mkhabela shared these sentiments as some local exporters already expressed concern about their future. 'People have a reason to panic because the tariffs will make it difficult for South African products to appeal to the American market,' said Mkhabela. He said small industries are facing the danger of collapsing because although the normal trade deal between South Africa and the US might be restored after the end of Trump's presidency, 'four years is a lot for a company.' 'When the market is closed (through exorbitant tariffs), it means a lot for small businesses that are sending products to the American market would suffer, as their clients would say your products are 30% higher. 'That would collapse the South African manufacturing system because we depend on the US as our second trade partner,' he said. He said South Africa cannot easily find a country that could replace the American market, which 'is bigger than what we are sending to the whole of Africa'. However, he said the African economy would recover after four years as it recovered from the global financial crisis and 'is still recovering from the global health (Covid-19 pandemic). But after Trump, many emerging companies will no longer exist because they will fail to repay bank loans. SA Farmers Development Association (SAFDA) Executive Chairman Dr Siyabonga Madlala, who is involved in sugar manufacturing, is concerned that while businesses have no power over politically influenced tariffs, they are the ones bearing the brunt. Madlala anticipated a loss of millions of rand, a situation that would result in alarming job losses. He said the South African Sugar Association (SASA)'s lots of sugar meant for the US might go to waste. 'America, through AGOA (the African Growth and Opportunity Act), has given us a lucrative market for about 24,000 tons of sugar exports, so with the imposition of tariffs, our sugar won't be attractive to our US consumers as it is now becoming expensive. 'It forces US consumers to look for alternatives rather than buying from us because our sugar becomes 30% more expensive,' said Madlala. South African competitors in supplying the US with sugar are Mexico, Brazil, Australia, and several Central American and Caribbean nations. He estimated that, through the tariffs, SASA will lose R168 million from its annual revenue. According to Madlala, the US market, which found South African sugar affordable under the AGOA agreement, may look for alternative countries to buy from. 'The reason is that lots of other countries are subsidised, therefore they can afford to still sell sugar than us, as we are not subsidised but working on our own,' said Madlala. He said reducing production would cause job losses and the shutdown of sugar mills. 'Once you try to lower the production, it means some farms will shut down or diversify. By that, it means that sugar mills will lose sugar cane supply, which is the lifeblood of the sugar mill,' he said. He said the tariffs came at the wrong time when the government's master plan was succeeding in reviving some major sugar mills, including Tongaat Hulett, which in the process was coming out of business rescue. 'While we are appreciating the master plan's initiative, we are now bombarded with the tariffs,' said Madlala. Influential organisations such as FW De Klerk Foundation recently called for the country to expand its trade partners rather than relying on the US. Agriculture Minister John Steenhuisen said the government was also reaching out to other countries. However, Madlala said finding an alternative market was not easy to do overnight. National Association of Automotive Component and Allied Manufacturers (NAACAM) CEO Renai Moothilal told the media that the automotive industry was already feeling the effects, as some companies have started to lose US deals. 'We are already seeing new contracts, especially for the US, being cancelled or not pursued, putting one of the country's most critical manufacturing sectors at risk,' Moothilal said. Build One SA (BOSA) called on Ramaphosa to engage directly with the US Congress members, who will decide on the fate of AGOA, and tell them that over 500,000 US jobs are linked to trade with South Africa. Another economist, Khulekani Mathe, commended Ramaphosa for continuing to negotiate with Trump, as he cannot immediately find an alternative market. He said it was not guaranteed that South Africa/US trade would recover after Trump's departure. 'It is dependent on whether we are to negotiate anytime between now and four for more favourable terms. The economic recovery would depend on whether the country can find an alternative market to send the volume of products that are sent to the US, something that can not materialise in the short term. Professor Bonke Dumisa said Trump was miscalculating to think tariffs would benefit his economy because 'Economic History shows us that no one wins the tariff wars'. 'Purportedly, it is said that the USA wants to open space for its businesses to recapture the market space they lost as they focused on moving abroad to produce more competitively priced products. Unfortunately, USA businesses priced themselves out of the markets. 'The South African businesses affected by these Tariffs must look for alternative markets. There is very little that the government can do to help these businesses,' said Dumisa. [email protected]
Daily Maverick
4 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Middle powers must step up to salvage G20 and the fragile multilateral order
As the world stares down a vortex of geopolitical instability, the challenge facing South Africa during its presidency of the G20 is not simply one of technical diplomacy. It is existential; the future of multilateralism is at stake. As a senior foreign diplomat in Pretoria put it to me recently: 'It is South Africa's destiny to have the G20 at this moment in history.' We live in an era of simultaneous, overlapping crises — climate change, inequality, war, debt, misinformation. But perhaps the most dangerous of all is the corrosion of international legal norms and standards and companion institutions that were established to manage such crises in the first place. That system, born in the ashes of World War 2 and further entrenched during the post-Cold War years, is now unravelling under the weight of double standards, exceptionalism and populist disdain. Donald Trump, the godfather of modern 'anti-globalism', has injected a dose of toxic precarity into international multilateral and trade relations, including the G20, whose presidency the United States is supposed to take over from South Africa at the end of this year. His approach to geo-economics — cynical, transactional, inward-looking — has metastasised across the globe, with numerous copycat nationalist extremists galvanised by the political cover Trump provides. Against this bleak backdrop, the 'great powers' — the US, China, and Russia — are locked in a grim tug-of-war for global influence and control, although it is important to recognise that of the three, China now represents the 'adult in the room': the only serious, rational actor, and a pillar of relative stability in a sea of uncertainty. What does this mean for the G20? Well, the traditional engine room of economic diplomacy now risks becoming just another forum for geopolitical point-scoring. The possibility of consensus — let alone coordinated action — has never looked so tenuous. So here we are: South Africa, as the current G20 president, presiding over an increasingly dissonant chorus, with the risk that next year's chair, the US, might simply abandon the entire ensemble if the domestic political winds shift. The famed G20 'troika' — the trio of past, present, and incoming chairs meant to ensure institutional continuity — may not survive the year. A new typology And so South African diplomats and officials will be advised to prepare for a number of possible scenarios, ranging from complete failure on the back of US obstructionism or boycotting, to a reasonably successful outcome, potentially achieved by the use of a uniquely South African negotiating concept from the early 1990s, namely 'sufficient consensus'. In this context, this may be the moment that 'middle powers' have been waiting for. It is far from being a new concept, but in looking towards those middle powers, it is worth recognising that the landscape has shifted and a new typology is needed. Between the three 'great powers' tussling for supremacy and the true middle powers, sits a 'mezzanine tier' of five former and emerging great powers: France, the UK, Germany, Japan and India — major economies with global reach, but tethered by domestic fragilities or preoccupations and inconsistent leadership. Between them and the rest — the bulk of the global community, often marginalised, frequently ignored, but deeply affected by global decisions — sit the true middle powers: states with shared values and enough legitimacy, capability and regional credibility to convene, broker and lead. In this four-tiered world, it is Tier Three — these middle powers — that must now carry the baton of multilateral renewal. They are neither so dominant as to provoke resistance, nor so weak as to be ignored. If anything, they are uniquely positioned to reclaim or reset the normative core of international relations. Moreover, South Africa, despite its domestic weaknesses and contradictions, is well-positioned to play a leadership role. As the respected veteran international relations professor Garth le Pere, now associated with the Mapungubwe Institute for Strategic Reflection (Mistra), will argue in a forthcoming paper, the country 'has certainly registered impressive gains as a respected 'norm entrepreneur' on the global stage, which has burnished its multilateral credentials'. Global governance crisis A primary example of this has been South Africa's principled stand on the genocide in Gaza and its extraordinary leadership in litigating the matter at the International Court of Justice. There is perhaps no more stark illustration of the global governance crisis than the unfolding catastrophe in Gaza. The relentless assault on civilians, the mounting evidence of war crimes and the studied silence — or, worse, complicity — of many Western capitals have shattered any illusion that the 'rules-based order' is universally applied. It has become clear that for some states, 'rules' are for others. In this context, the emergence of the Hague Group — a coalition of countries pushing for international accountability for Israel — represents a watershed moment. At long last, a group of states is willing to act not on the basis of geopolitical calculus, but on the foundations of international law and moral consistency. If Gaza is the acid test — of values and commitment to the equal and consistent application of principles of international law — the test for middle powers is clear: can they sustain this moral clarity, not just on Gaza, but across the spectrum of global crises? Can they model a new kind of leadership, grounded in principles rather than power? Amid the dysfunction, there are glimmers of what a middle-power-led agenda could look like. The recent agreement between Spain, Brazil and South Africa to explore a global wealth tax is one such example — bold, values-based and aimed at tackling structural inequality head-on. But more is needed. As the G20 presidency progresses, South Africa could convene a group of like-minded middle powers — let's call it the M10 — to build consensus on the core issues of sustainability, equality, and solidarity, the three pillars of South Africa's G20 agenda. An M10, comprising Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Canada, Spain, South Korea, Australia, Norway, Ireland and South Africa itself (all of whom are either G20 countries or invited guests), could work to salvage and advance at least 10 priority deliverables from this G20 cycle. These might include ideas and principles such as: A framework for global wealth taxation; A new global agreement on loss and damage finance; Strengthened climate finance targets for adaptation in the face of climate breakdown; Global standards on just transition planning; A roadmap for debt reform for climate-vulnerable countries; A moratorium on fossil fuel subsidies; A commitment to reform the Bretton Woods and UN Security Council governance structures; Global norms on AI and digital rights; A joint statement on Gaza and international law; and A global compact on youth and intergenerational equity in climate policy. Or it could be focused in a more granular way on affirming the specific recommendations of the myriad G20 working groups and task forces that are now concluding their work and entering what is known as the 'advocacy phase' of the year. It will be about what such middle powers decide they can most usefully agree upon and drive a wider consensus in support of, with or without US cooperation. This is not about forming a new geopolitical bloc. It is about making multilateralism work again — through pragmatic cooperation, moral clarity and inclusive leadership. At this hinge moment in human history, we sit at that delicate Gramscian moment when the old order is dying, but the new has yet to be born. If great powers cannot be relied upon to steward the international system responsibly, then the middle powers must step into the breach. For South Africa, the G20 presidency is more than a diplomatic milestone. It is a chance to reimagine leadership in a fractured world — to prove that solidarity is not a slogan, but a strategy. And that middle powers, acting in concert, can help bend the arc of global governance back towards justice, sustainability and peace. Perhaps the M10 can lead the way. DM
Eyewitness News
16 hours ago
- Eyewitness News
Average US tariffs top 20%, back to 1910s levels: WTO and IMF
PARIS - The US tariff rate now averages 20.1%, the highest level since the early 1910s except for a brief spike earlier this year after new duties took effect Thursday, WTO and IMF data showed Friday. The figure, calculated by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), stands in contrast with the 2.4% rate in force at the time of President Donald Trump's inauguration on January 20. Trump's April 2 announcement of "reciprocal" tariffs on the United States's main trading partners and subsequent escalations, particularly on Chinese goods, briefly drove the average rate to 24.8% in May, a figure unseen since 1904, according to data from the United States International Trade Commission. A trade "truce" brought down sky-high tariff levels that the United States and China had imposed upon one another, but that is set to expire next week. The new figure by the WTO and IMF takes into account the trade deals the United States negotiated with the European Union, Japan, South Korea and other nations that have now come into force. It also includes the latest tariffs unilaterally applied by the United States on Brazil, Canada and semi-finished copper imports. These deals usually included lower tariff levels than Trump threatened in April but were higher than the baseline 10% rate the US introduced. The updated average tariff rate exceeds the nearly 20% rate that the United States applied in the 1930s, a period of high tariffs that economists widely consider behind the severity and duration of the Great Depression. However, the WTO and the IMF estimate the average rate, which is based on trade volumes, by applying the latest rates to 2024 trade volumes. Thus, it is an estimation as companies have already changed their behaviour by stockpiling and delaying purchases and may shift buying patterns or reduce imports in reaction to the new rates. According to the Budget Lab at Yale University, once changing consumption patterns and secondary effects are taken into account, the figure should fall towards 17.7%, provided Trump doesn't make any more shock announcements.
