Ouattara poised to win Cote d’Ivoire’s October presidential elections:
Cote d’Ivoire, which will hold presidential elections on 25 October, plays an important role in the politics and economy of West Africa, a region in which a number of countries are either under military rule or facing political uncertainty, which has hindered economic growth.
Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger have been suspended from the Economic Community of West African States (Ecowas) because they are under military rule. In response, they formed the Alliance of Sahel States to replace Ecowas. This has raised tensions and concerns of economic stagnation and furthering political instability in the region.
Cote D’Ivoire’s President Alassane Ouattara has confirmed his candidacy for re-election. He remains popular in the country and polls suggest that he is likely to be re-elected. But a few hurdles have emerged.
First, some Ivorians have taken to the streets to challenge the barring of former presidents Laurent Gbagbo and Tidjane Thiam from contesting elections. The country’s Constitution does not allow those with criminal convictions and dual citizenship to stand for presidential elections. Gbagbo is a convicted criminal and Tidjane Thiam, a former chief executive of Credit Suisse, has dual citizenship.
Second, some Ivorians have accused Ouattara of violating the Constitution by running for the fourth term. The Constitution was amended in 2016 and among the changes the president is limited to two terms. But what is disputed is the date in which the change became effective. The Constitution is quiet in that regard. Ouattara availed himself for another term, arguing that the Constitution only became effective after it was enacted in 2016, meaning that the first two terms he occupied as the president were annulled by the constitutional amendments. He argued that the Constitution approved in 2016 reset his two-term limit in 2020.
Despite this, the constitutional council approved Ouattara’s bid to run for the third term in 2020 and subsequently for the fourth term in 2025.
Ouattara assumed office after defeating Laurent Gbagbo in 2010 presidential elections. Gbagbo refused to leave office, which triggered political violence. According to the United Nations and human rights groups, more than 3000 people were killed and more than a million were displaced. In 2011 Gbagbo was finally forced to relinquish power. He was subsequently arrested and charged with crimes against humanity at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. He was acquitted and returned to Cote D’Ivoire on 17 June 2021. During his ICC trial, Gbagbo was convicted in absentia in 2018 for embezzling public funds of the Central Bank of West African States.
Cote d’Ivoire is in a rather different position from most countries in the region. First, under the presidency of Ouattara, Cote D’Ivoire has had impressive economic growth for four successive years.
From 2012 to 2019 economic growth was 7% to 8%, making it one of the fastest growing economies not only in the region but in the whole of Africa. This year GDP is projected to grow from 6% to 6.3%.
The country has also streamlined its cocoa exports, which remains the mainstay of its economy. Cote d’Ivoire provides 40% of the global cocoa supply, making it one of the world’s largest producers.
Economic migrants from neighbouring countries, especially Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger, have moved to Cote d’Ivoire seeking opportunities. Large amounts of financial remittances from Cote d’Ivoire flow back into these countries. This is significant, because it shows the important role Cote d’Ivoire plays in the regional economy.
Furthermore, with the political turmoil in West Africa, Cote d’Ivoire has become a significant conduit between business and countries in the region. Political stability, fiscal discipline and good governance has made Cote d’Ivoire an investment magnet.
And there has also been infrastructural development and investments in mining, energy, agriculture and other economic sectors.
It is these achievements that contribute towards the popularity of Ouattara. Since taking office in 2011, Ouattara has transformed large parts of the economy in the country,
Countries in the region must leverage on the experience of Ouattara as they move forward with reforms in their respective countries. Ouattara could play significant political and economic roles in rebuilding trust and confidence in the region’s economies and governments.
Thembisa Fakude is a senior research fellow at Africa Asia Dialogues and a director at the Mail & Guardian.
Ukraine war: Trump’s ambiguity in diplomacy does not work:
The highly anticipated Alaska peace summit between US President Donald Trump and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin ran for three hours. It was initially to be just the two presidents meeting but that changed as soon as Trump landed in Alaska. This went on to be a meeting that included the foreign affairs ministers and their respective envoys. And for a moment, it almost seemed the objective of this meeting — at least from the American side — was to secure a ceasefire in Ukraine, but that was not to be.
Trump had threatened Russia with severe sanctions if it did not agree to a ceasefire. This was just a cheap tactic the US has used on other countries. But, in this case, Putin did not blink and knows too well that this kind of diplomacy has short legs.
It would be wise for the US president to quickly learn that in diplomacy, the old adage “honesty is the best policy” reigns supreme. His flipflopping, wishy-washy tactics of threats has no basis in reality when it comes to dealing with any serious situation, and the Russia-Ukraine war is teaching him that lesson.
After the talks behind closed doors, Trump and his counterpart spoke to the media. Putin spoke for roughly eight minutes in which he thanked the US president for the opportunity to talk. He mentioned that the “agreement” reached was a significant milestone in these negotiations, and the need for economic cooperation. Putin said he would agree to the security guarantee of Ukraine by the Europeans and the US. On the other hand, Trump said “there is no deal, until the deal is made”, meaning the talks had not yielded any meaningful gains. He went on to say that he would call the president of Ukraine, major European players and Nato to report to them about the meeting in Alaska.
Trump’s tone before and after this meeting changed. He went from threatening secondary sanctions on Russia to saying “there will be no sanctions” because he realised the so-called secondary sanctions would have to directly target China and India as a way of preventing them from doing business with Moscow. It is evident that the US president has abandoned his position of a ceasefire and proposes a peace agreement.
Even though Putin categorically said the meeting was productive and he was happy with the “agreement” they had discussed, he gave no details about this so-called agreement. Neither did Trump.
Prior to the Alaska meeting, and in his usual fashion of bullying others the US president warned Russia of secondary sanctions. He gave a 50-day ultimatum to end the war, then changed it to 10 days and then a week — or else the Russian economy would be “crushed”. And that one week ultimatum was to have ended on 8 August. Perhaps Trump realised that if people begin to see that his threats have no consequences, then no one would ever take him seriously. Hence, he had to work out some sort of plan and called for a summit with Putin to save face at home. But the Alaska meeting may have been a Trump card to deflect attention from the Jefferey Epstein scandal.
Putin touched down in Alaska at about 10:55am local time. The man came prepared. His narrative of the war has never changed, his objectives for the war remain constant, and after that meeting with Trump, it was Putin that walked away as a clear winner.
Just three days after the Alaska meeting, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was escorted to the White House by France’s President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Finland’s President Alexander Stubb, Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, president of European Union Ursula von der Leyen and the Nato general secretary, Mark Rutte.
Throughout their discussion, one item seems to be prominent on the agenda, and that was security guarantees for Ukraine, something akin to article 5 of Nato as a condition for further negotiations, which is wishful thinking. Zbig Brzezinski, a prominent American political scientist and former national security adviser, once observed that “Russia with Ukraine in its sphere of influence is a major power in the heartland. And conversely, Russia without Ukraine in its sphere of influence is just a regional power.”
Essentially, this is the root cause of this conflict, where Russia seeks to keep Ukraine within its sphere of influence, while the West wants to see a Ukraine that is outside of the sphere of Russian influence.
The US president should be reminded that he has a duty and a moral obligation to take a firm position on this war. The more ambiguous he remains, the more bloodshed on the battlefield and the further away this conflict will be from being conclusive. It’s becoming apparent that he is already trying to pass this torch on. One of his social media posts just before the arrival of European leaders and Zelenskyy was quite telling: “President Zelenskyy of Ukraine can end the war with Russia almost immediately, if he wants to, or he can continue to fight.” This is not the kind of comment one expects from someone positioning himself as a peace broker. Trump seems to be shaky, ambiguous and at times even dishonest in his approach to end this war. This is the same war that he told Americans and the world that he would end it within 24 hours of taking office as president of the United States.
Perhaps, a lesson in history will help Trump to recognise that this is a defining moment for him and his administration. Many years ago, when the Americans lost the war in Vietnam and were forced to accept fate at the negotiating table, which meant leaving Vietnam under a peace agreement secured in Paris. The American chief diplomat and negotiator, Henry Kissinger, alongside his Vietnamese counterpart, Le Duc Tho, were nominated for the Noble peace prize. Le Duc Tho turned down the prize on the basis that the peace accord signed between the US and Vietnam had not been reached or implemented fully. Kissinger gladly accepted the award. The moral lesson is that diplomacy requires tact, forthrightness and that the truth must be told and all parties to the conflict must be heard. Those involved must honor their duty to find a just and lasting solution.
Aaron Ng’ambi is a political analyst, Zambian politician and newspaper columnist.
Trade with China will lessen blow of US tariffs, says ambassador Wu Peng:
China’s trade with South Africa is shifting from a traditional exchange to industrialisation, which will take time to enhance South Africa’s production capacity, Chinese ambassador Wu Peng has said.
Bilateral trade between the two countries reached $ 34.18 billion in 2024, with South Africa importing $ 21.9 billion of goods from China and exporting $ 12.2 billion, resulting in a trade deficit of $ 19.71 billion, the South African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA) said. Since 2000, trade deficits have contributed to a net cash outflow of $ 114.83 billion from South Africa to China. It said China’s relations with Africa more broadly is driven by its demand for raw materials and access to markets for its manufactured goods.
Speaking during an SAIIA seminar on Monday titled: “Enhancing Global Trade Cooperation Amid Rising Protectionism. Can South-South Cooperation Be the Answer?” Wu said the Chinese government has noticed a need for reform of trade relationships.g
He said this would see a transition period from resource-based trade to industrialisation, noting that mining can also create jobs and enhance GDP growth in South Africa.
“We understand there is a need for value addition in South Africa but Rome was not built in one day,” said Wu.
South Africa earlier raised concerns about the trade imbalance with the Asian economic giant at the 9th Forum on China-Africa Cooperation in September 2024, with President Cyril Ramaphosa noting: “We have witnessed an increase in our bilateral trade. However, as South Africa, we would like to narrow the trade deficit and address the structure of our trade.”
Ramaphosa acknowledged an increase of “inward procurement” by Chinese companies in 2023 and urged for “more sustainable manufacturing and job-creating investments”.
On Monday Wu highlighted China’s role in lessening the effects of the United States’ 30% reciprocal tariffs on South Africa, and called for increased multilateralism to combat “unilateralism, protectionism and economic bullying [which are] are on the rise. These tariffs are nothing formidable; they will pass, and time will go on.”
He said China has been South Africa’s largest trading partner for 15 years, contributing more than 20% to trade, while South Africa is Beijing’s biggest partner in Africa.
Pretoria says it will not retaliate against Washington and has instead offered the Trump administration a revised and undisclosed trade deal. The country is also looking to diversify its export markets and has set up a support desk at the department of trade and industry.
China has also not been spared from the punitive US tariffs. Wu said the question now is where the economic direction for the Global South lies in relation to what he called the US’s abuse of tariffs.
He argued that trade with China has not been the major cause of South Africa’s export decline, stating that most refining of metals used to be done locally, but producers faced a price hike because of the country’s electricity crisis. This had led to the closure of several refineries.
He said the 2024 Forum on China-Africa Cooperation had sent a “strong message of unity of the Global South to safeguard justice and development”.
Wu noted that 53 African countries have signed memorandums of understanding with China to work towards 0% tariffs as part of a “charter of win-win cooperation”. More than 30 have already signed economic partnership agreements, which he described as the “first step” to achieving duty-free access.
He stressed that this was in line with World Trade Organisation rules and China’s commitment to multilateralism.
South African agricultural exports already enjoy 0% tariffs in China, an arrangement that began 10 years ago.
Wu said Pretoria had submitted a list of 100 products — including vehicle parts, organic chemicals and plastic-related goods, many of which were previously exported to the US — that it hopes to expand into the Chinese market.
“The Chinese market will provide relief from tariff pressure and enhance diversification,” Wu said.
China buys 80% of South Africa’s macadamia nuts, making it the biggest consumer of the product. He echoed Agriculture Minister John Steinhausen’s remarks that China was negotiating the import of five types of stone fruit and would begin talks on peaches, plums and apricots, which “will find their ways in steady streams to the consumers in China”.
Chinese enterprise investment was also on the rise, Wu added, with companies maintaining more than $ 3 billion in Africa. Since last year’s Forum on China-Africa Cooperation, there has been $ 1.6 billion in new investment, alongside 18 business networking events linking Chinese and African small and medium enterprises.
South Africa’s deputy director general for trade in the department of trade, industry and competition, Xolelwa Mlumbi-Peter, said China’s 0% tariff on Africa “is a good agreement that South Africa welcomes” and negotiations should include local value addition and beneficiation.
She said China’s technological advancement was “moving it up the value chain” and leaving space at the lower end for other Global South countries.
“So it’s going to be important as we engage in South-South partnership to identify the scope of where, for example, as South Africa in the global value chain we can play so that, as China moves up, we occupy the space not just as a supplier of primary products, but we can have some processing that takes place in South Africa before products are exported to China for China to do more sophisticated processing,” she said.
The Covid-19 pandemic had highlighted how countries with technology hoarded it, Mlumbi-Peter said. “But I think as countries of the South, having had that experience, it will be important to look at how do we partner in terms of technology transfer and technology cooperation to ensure that we are able to diversify the manufacturing base among ourselves.”
She argued that building alternative development models would be critical for Africa’s industrialisation, with regional blocs and new institutions forming the basis of collaboration.
Mlumbi-Peter said the Brics grouping remained an important platform “in the current context of seismic shifts in global trade” to foster cooperation in agriculture, industry, innovation and new energy.
The secretary general of the African Continental Free Trade Agreement, Wamkele Nene, called China’s role “transformative” and encouraged the need for similar “intensive investments”, especially that which supports Africa’s development.
Submit and get free exposure here: Showcase Your Business | Advertise Your Special Offers.
