Originally, the heart of this article centered around a nascent policy strategy by the Biden administration in regards to its lesser known allies and trade partners on the African continent. That policy, in my opinion, was likely to be continued under his chosen successor, Kamala Harris. However, due to a recent shift in the political agenda of the White House from Liberalism to Trumpism, the future relationship of the United States with the global south is now in question. Joseph Biden, despite his expansion of Trump-Era tariffs to protect domestic industry, was the furthest thing from an isolationist — in fact, it could be said that he is part of a fading generation of Democrat politicians who placed international cooperation and trade at the forefront of their political agenda, rather than focusing strictly on domestic politics. Still, both the African Union (AU) and Caribbean Community (CARICOM) have agency in regards to their trade and development strategies, and so despite a shift in U.S. interest in these projects, they may continue regardless.

On Sept. 7, 2024, Dr. Carla Bennett, chairman of the Caribbean Community, made a speech before Barbadian leaders and the press  in the capitol, Bridgetown. Dr. Bennett’s words, espousing the “vibrant pan-Africanism” and warm feelings between the Caribbean and African continent, at first seemed to be fairly standard pandering by an international leader. Amid the group of government officials and reporters, however, was an outlier — Okechukwu Ihejirika, chief operating officer of the African Export-Import Bank’s (Afreximbank) Caribbean office. 

Dr. Bennett’s words and Ihejirika’s attendance reflects a noteworthy trend of increasing political, economic, and social integration between the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and the African Union (AU). The year prior to Dr. Bennett’s speech, Afreximbank constructed a representative office in Barbados with the purpose of helping facilitate Africa-Caribbean trade. African and Caribbean leaders have met consistently since 2020 with the goal of Caribbean nations diversifying their export portfolio and to becoming closer with their neighbors across the Atlantic Ocean. That being said,  CARICOM is primarily an insular organization, akin to the European Union. The primary goal is to coordinate foreign and economic policies among member states, as well as economic integration and relative freedom of movement. To that end, much of CARICOM trade is with other members, and the majority of external trade still goes to larger powers such as the United States and China. Though Caribbean trade with Africa is minimal at the moment, it is clear that this is a developing relationship that may take years or decades to fully coalesce.

While the Caribbean may be best known for its idyllic beaches, rich culture and luxury crops such as nutmeg and indigo, it should start to be considered as a hotspot for a changing global economic order. Although some may overlook its assets, CARICOM has 15 votes at the UN and sits on a vital trade route between the United States, Mexico, South America and West Africa. CARICOM also rests quite comfortably within the U.S. sphere of economic and political influence, with a number of military bases and multilateral trade agreements made between the two actors. The United States wishes to keep CARICOM friendly towards it, as a trade and security partner to bolster the economy, combat the illicit drug trade from South America and project naval power into the southern oceans. How then, does this new strategy of economic development through trade diversification fit into the American agenda?

Under the Biden administration, Democratic leaders were committed to continued trade liberalization in line with neoliberal values. However,  it was abundantly clear that the United States had competition, primarily from an ascendant China who reached out to the global south through a flood of public and private investments, trade agreements and land purchases for the purpose of trade and security. 

This strategy, known as the Belt and Road initiative, sought to tie nations of the global south to China through a mix of debt trap diplomacy and circular trade relationships, blocking the United States out of the region economically. The old trade order, in which U.S. economic dominance relied on open markets, is now in danger of fracturing under the pressure of increased regional integration, potentially shutting the United States out of a Chinese-led trade order. 

Fearing this, the United States has ramped up its own investments, particularly in the African continent. Biden’s cabinet directly named Kenya as a potential trade partner and a major non-NATO ally, a country that has recently become disillusioned with the Belt and Road after a disastrous railway project halted last year. On the Southern cone of the continent, U.S. and European governments have elected to help fund a railway that connects the coast of Angola with the African interior, rich in minerals integral to electric vehicle battery manufacturing. The potential for this project is enormous: Joe Biden already wants to bolster the U.S. EV industry, and diminish Chinese influence in a hotly contested region, rich in UN votes as much as minerals and luxury items, effectively killing two birds with one stone.

The Caribbean could serve as an excellent proxy for this continued United States-Africa partnership. Already kindred in identity (with founding visions based on the ideals of pan-Africanism and decolonization), CARICOM could become the source of a linkage for U.S. foreign policy toward Africa – increased cooperation with one region could coincide with increased cooperation in the other. Rather than being directly managed by the United States, this trilateral relationship grows under tacit approval from Washington, justified as part of an existing history of trade liberalization. Given proper attention and encouragement, a pro-United States trade bloc could have formed among Caribbean and African states, trading with each other as much as they traded with the United States. However, just this last month a bomb was thrown into these plans. Newly elected 47th President Donald J. Trump, a vehement isolationist and staunch anti-China politician, is ambiguous as to his policy regarding trade and investment to either region. For starters, these developments are marginal in the minds of the American people, with domestic matters and the wars in Ukraine and Gaza being the primary foreign issues of interest. Trump’s strategy may be unshackled by commitments to his constituency and may continue under different leadership, in the same way that Trump-era tariffs toward China were maintained under Biden. However, that may also mean a U.S. withdrawal of direct involvement in the growing Caribbean-Africa relationship. The Lobito corridor may lose funding, and the HOPE and HELP acts (which give preferential textile trading rights toward Haiti) may disappear in a tide of protectionism, a policy that seeks to protect domestic industries by shutting out competition via tariffs. However, the CARICOM-AU partnership is not necessarily dead in the water. 

Ignoring the economic incentives to continue working together, there are a number of security and political benefits for the Caribbean and Africa to reap from a continued partnership. A renewed Trump presidency brings the future of trade with the United States as a whole into question – shaking a dependency on American goods and services may lessen the blow should tariffs be implemented. Similarly, African exports are primarily oriented towards advanced industrialized countries such as China, the EU and the United States, often not focusing on developing nations overseas or even other African states. Afreximbank is already focused on developing inter-African trade, and developing a more diverse portfolio only helps to achieve further independence from the northern capital. In addition to these benefits toward sovereignty, unifying policy agendas in international institutions makes a CARICOM-AU bloc a formidable force to reckon with. Leaders have already cooperated on social issues such as petitioning for a formal program to institute reparations for African slavery, a feat that could potentially be replicated on other issues, ranging from civil conflict to economic development. 

Despite a potential setback in what could have been a geopolitical boon for the United States, CARICOM and the AU have no real incentives to end their burgeoning alliance. From trade to development to security to social issues, the two blocs have more similarities than differences, and it is in their best interests to continue cooperation through bilateral agreements and negotiations. Perhaps, this new dynamic may represent a shift toward coordination among developing nations rather than clamoring toward the world hegemons, as it becomes evident that the free trade order is more threatened than ever by protectionists in both Europe and the United States. What remains to be seen is how the new Trump administration wishes to engage with the winds of change.

Ghana, located on the coast of west Africa, is the number one importer of second-hand clothing in the world. This is partially due to the size of their second-hand clothing markets and the power dynamic that exists between global superpowers and Ghana. Weekly, the country imports around 15 million second-hand clothing items, and in 2021, imported $214 million worth of used clothes. Locally, the used clothing has become known as obroni wawu, which translates to “dead white man’s clothes.” 

In Accra, Ghana’s capital, used clothing can be found in ditches, lining beaches and in the ocean off the coast. Accra is home to Kantamanto, one of the world’s largest second-hand clothing markets. Most items circulating the market are donated clothes from the U.S., United Kingdom and China. Individuals give their clothing to charity and second-hand organizations, who only sell up to 20% of the donated clothing. The rest go through a process of sales, each party buying up what they can reuse or resell. Finally, the last buyer is usually left with the bottom of the barrel; these merchants at the end of the chain often work in second hand clothing markets like Kantamanto. These individuals buy clothing by the bale, not knowing what is inside, hoping that they can sell it and make a profit. Essentially, after an item is donated, it is sold to exporters and importers who sell it to vendors in markets like Kantamanto. 

With the increased popularity surrounding fast fashion, individuals are throwing away and donating clothes at a much higher rate. In fact, textile waste has increased 811% since 1960. The present world produces 92 million tons of textile waste each year and up to 100 billion new garments are made each year. Shein, H&M and Zara are some examples of the most popular fast fashion brands that are causing some of the most harm on the planet. As a result, while the number of clothes coming into markets has increased, the clothes’ overall quality has dropped significantly. Reports indicate more and more clothes are ripping at the seams, have bloodstains, broken zippers or other characteristics making them virtually unwearable. The amount of clothing coming in is not necessarily the main issue, it is the clothing’s poor quality that is causing the growth of waste in Ghana. 

It is estimated around 30,000 people depend on Ghana’s clothing market for their livelihoods.  Before the rise of fast fashion, vendors remember being able to sell all the clothing that would come in a single bale. However, 40% of the clothing imported into Kantamanto now leaves as waste, whether through legal waste management channels or illegal dumping in ditches, streams and informal landfills. 

What Kantamano’ story illustrates is that donating and repurposing second-hand clothing seems beneficial on the surface; it benefits communities who can reuse the clothing, provides jobs to 30,000 individuals and has a positive economic impact. However, the fast fashion industry has turned a positive practice into a pollution problem. Individuals purchase clothing from fast fashion brands, wear the item maybe two or three times and donate it just when it starts to fall to pieces. The immense amount of waste has caused Ghana to become fast fashion’s personal trash bin. As the waste continues to pile up across Ghana, more and more communities are being impacted. 

The community of Accra is substantially impacted in all areas of life. Two miles from the Kantamanto market lies the community of Old Faduma. What once used to be a dynamic and thriving community has become one of the most notorious illegal dumping destinations for clothing waste from Kantamanto. With a population of around 80,000 people, many homes are built atop layers of waste. 

The surrounding environment is also suffering. Korle Lagoon in Accra was once a body of water where people enjoyed fishing and swimming but is now one of the most polluted bodies of water worldwide. The water has turned black, the shores are lined with litter and the air is hazy with smoke from burning waste. This pollution is particularly damaging because the end of the lagoon feeds into the Atlantic Ocean, where most of the clothing ends up piled on the beach and even entering the sea. Textile waste takes around 200 years to decompose, so when the clothes make their way into the ocean, they are destroying marine life as well as the livelihoods of fishermen. It has become near impossible to walk on the beach without stepping on mounds of clothing. Fishermen catch more clothes in their nets than fish and the waste has only kept accumulating. 

Organizations like the Or Foundation, a sustainable fashion advocacy group, have been working with traders in Kantamanto to promote methods for recycling and repurposing discarded clothes. For example, it’s been proposed that traders could shred the waste clothing and sell it as insulation instead of throwing it away. Additionally, South African countries have adopted policies that limit the amount of clothing that can be imported. The government of Ghana could create policies to regulate the importation of used goods by requiring importers to obtain permits, which would allow Ghana to control the goods that enter the country. In turn, it creates a ban on importation of waste, unwanted, and low-quality goods. 

However, no matter how many sustainable practices the traders in Ghana adopt or polices the government implements, the weight and speed of the textile market is too much to bear in the long run. Accra’s beaches and bodies of water will never be clear of waste until exporting countries encourage brands not to produce clothing in excess. Ghana is not the only country dealing with the aftermath of fast fashion’s disregarded clothing; places such as Kenya, Angola, Tunisia, Tanzania and Uganda have all in recent years had to contend with the repercussions of fashion companies’ unsustainable practices. It is time for fast fashion companies to take responsibility for the pollution they cause around the world and there are several policies that could help increase accountability in the fast fashion industry.  One example would be creating taxation schemes that put the burden on brands to pay for the waste they create. Brands should give the money raised from the taxes to importer countries to aid with waste management and cleanup projects. 

The second-hand clothing industry is, at its core, a business. It’s not a form of recycling, or waste management; it is a supply chain. It is a complicated system that involves charities, commercial waste collectors, sorters, exporters, importers, wholesalers and market traders. Individuals rely on this supply chain for their employment and livelihood, and they are not at fault for the increased amount of textile waste. 

Giving clothes to countries that can use them is not intentionally harmful. However, if someone donates a t-shirt that is falling apart at the seams to an importer country like Ghana, is it truly helping the community, or are they using it as their personal dumping ground?