agreements

Nov. 14 (UPI) — The White House announced new “trade framework agreements” with Argentina, Ecuador, El Salvador and Guatemala, all governed by administrations aligned with president Donald Trump, with the goal of reducing certain tariffs, eliminating non-tariff barriers and expanding access for U.S. products in those markets.

According to a statement issued by Washington on Thursday, the agreements establish reciprocal commitments.

The Latin American countries will eliminate or ease requirements and licenses that restrict the entry of U.S. goods — including agricultural products, medical devices, machinery and automobiles — while the U.S. government will reduce or waive tariffs on some key exports from those countries, as long as the products are not produced in sufficient quantities domestically.

“These agreements will help American farmers, ranchers, fishermen, small businesses and manufacturers increase U.S. exports and expand trade opportunities with these partners,” the White House said.

The commitments agreed to range from the acceptance of U.S. standards for vehicles, auto parts, medical devices and pharmaceuticals in El Salvador’s case to preferential access in Argentina for machinery, technology products, chemicals and agricultural goods, along with reforms to its intellectual property regime.

Guatemala agreed to ensure a favorable framework for digital trade, including free data transfers and a pledge not to impose taxes on U.S. digital services, while also strengthening its labor rules to prohibit goods linked to forced labor.

Ecuador assumed stricter environmental obligations, such as improving forest governance and combating illegal logging, as well as fully complying with international rules on fisheries subsidies.

On the trade front, it will eliminate or reduce tariffs on key products — fruits, nuts, legumes, wheat, wine and spirits — and dismantle its variable agricultural tariff system, opening significant access for U.S. exports.

The governments of all four countries welcomed the initiative as an opportunity to boost their exports, attract foreign investment and strengthen their competitiveness.

Argentine Foreign Minister Pablo Quirno said on X that the agreement “creates the conditions to increase U.S. investment in Argentina” and includes tariff reductions for key industries.

In a statement, the government of Javier Milei said that as part of this understanding, the two countries agreed to significantly expand access for Argentine beef in the U.S. market and to work together to eliminate non-tariff barriers to bilateral agrifood trade.

It added that the United States will eliminate tariffs on products it does not produce, while Argentina will grant tariff preferences to facilitate the entry of capital goods and intermediate inputs.

Guatemalan President Bernardo Arévalo and Economy Minister Gabriela García said on social media that more than 70% of the products the country exports to the United States will now enter tariff-free. They added that most remaining products will face a 10% tariff, Prensa Libre reported.

In Ecuador’s case, as Agriculture, Fisheries and Livestock Minister Danilo Palacios had previously indicated, among the products that will no longer pay the 15% tariff imposed by the United States in August are bananas and cacao, two of the main goods in Ecuador’s export basket, the newspaper Primicias reported.

While Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele reposted the White House’s official statement on X with the caption “Friends” alongside both countries’ flags, the Salvadoran Association of Industrialists said the agreement is a “unique opportunity” for exports and for attracting investment.

The Trump administration’s announcement remains at the framework stage, and the agreements are expected to be formalized in the coming weeks.

However, they do not amount to full free trade agreements, but are designed as specific market-access and regulatory commitments, including a guarantee not to impose digital taxes on U.S. companies.

Over the past two decades, Russia’s economic influence in Africa—and specifically in Nigeria—has been limited, largely due to a lack of structured financial support from Russian policy banks and state-backed investment mechanisms. While Russian companies have demonstrated readiness to invest and compete with global players, they consistently cite insufficient government financial guarantees as a key constraint.

Unlike China, India, Japan, and the United States—which have provided billions in concessionary loans and credit lines to support African infrastructure, agriculture, manufacturing, and SMEs—Russia has struggled to translate diplomatic goodwill into substantial economic projects. For example, Nigeria’s trade with Russia accounts for barely 1% of total trade volume, while China and the U.S. dominate at over 15% and 10%, respectively, in the last decade. This disparity highlights the challenges Russia faces in converting agreements into actionable investment.

Lessons from Nigeria’s Past

The limited impact of Russian economic diplomacy echoes Nigeria’s own history of unfulfilled agreements during former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s administration. Over the past 20 years, ambitious energy, transport, and industrial initiatives signed with foreign partners—including Russia—often stalled or produced minimal results. In many cases, projects were approved in principle, but funding shortfalls, bureaucratic hurdles, and weak follow-through left them unimplemented. Nothing monumental emerged from these agreements, underscoring the importance of financial backing and sustained commitment.

China as a Model

Policy experts point to China’s systematic approach to African investments as a blueprint for Russia. Chinese state policy banks underwrite projects, de-risk investments, and provide financing often secured by African sovereign guarantees. This approach has enabled Chinese companies to execute large-scale infrastructure efficiently, expanding their presence across sectors while simultaneously investing in human capital.

Egyptian Professor Mohamed Chtatou at the International University of Rabat and Mohammed V University in Rabat, Morocco, argues, “Russia could replicate such mechanisms to ensure companies operate with financial backing and risk mitigation, rather than relying solely on bilateral agreements or political connections.”

Russia’s Current Footprint in Africa

Russia’s economic engagement in Africa is heavily tied to natural resources and military equipment. In Zimbabwe, platinum rights and diamond projects were exchanged for fuel or fighter jets. Nearly half of Russian arms exports to Africa are concentrated in countries like Nigeria, Zimbabwe, and Mozambique. Large-scale initiatives, such as the planned $10 billion nuclear plant in Zambia, have stalled due to a lack of Russian financial commitment, despite completed feasibility studies. Similar delays have affected nuclear projects in South Africa, Rwanda, and Egypt.

Federation Council Chairperson Valentina Matviyenko and Senator Igor Morozov have emphasized parliamentary diplomacy and the creation of new financial instruments, such as investment funds under the Russian Export Center, to provide structured support for businesses and enhance trade cooperation. These measures are designed to address historical gaps in financing and ensure that agreements lead to tangible outcomes.

Opportunities and Challenges

Analysts highlight a fundamental challenge: Russia’s limited incentives in Africa. While China invests to secure resources and export markets, Russia lacks comparable commercial drivers. Russian companies possess technological and industrial capabilities, but without sufficient financial support, large-scale projects remain aspirational rather than executable.

The historic Russia-Africa Summits in Sochi and in St. Petersburg explicitly indicate a renewed push to deepen engagement, particularly in the economic sectors. President Vladimir Putin has set a goal to raise Russia-Africa trade from $20 billion to $40 billion over the next few years. However, compared to Asian, European, and American investors, Russia still lags significantly. UNCTAD data shows that the top investors in Africa are the Netherlands, France, the UK, the United States, and China—countries that combine capital support with strategic deployment.

In Nigeria, agreements with Russian firms over energy and industrial projects have yielded little measurable progress. Over 20 years, major deals signed during Obasanjo’s administration and renewed under subsequent governments often stalled at the financing stage. The lesson is clear: political agreements alone are insufficient without structured investment and follow-through.

Strategic Recommendations

For Russia to expand its economic influence in Africa, analysts recommend:

1. Structured financial support: Establishing state-backed credit lines, policy bank guarantees, and investment funds to reduce project risks.

2. Incentive realignment: Identifying sectors where Russian expertise aligns with African needs, including energy, industrial technology, and infrastructure.

3. Sustained implementation: Turning signed agreements into tangible projects with clear timelines and milestones, avoiding the pitfalls of unfulfilled past agreements.

With proper financial backing, Russia can leverage its technological capabilities to diversify beyond arms sales and resource-linked deals, enhancing trade, industrial, and technological cooperation across Africa.

Conclusion

Russia’s Africa strategy remains a work in progress. Nigeria’s experience with decades of agreements that failed to materialize underscores the importance of structured financial commitments and persistent follow-through. Without these, Russia risks remaining a peripheral player (virtual investor) while Arab States such as the UAE, China, the United States, and other global powers consolidate their presence.

The potential is evident: Africa is a fast-growing market with vast natural resources, infrastructure needs, and a young, ambitious population. Russia’s challenge—and opportunity—is to match diplomatic efforts with financial strategy, turning political ties into lasting economic influence.