Earlier this week, the Biden administration followed through with a threat to kick three countries out of a duty-free program for sub-Saharan African countries. Ethiopia, Mali, and Guinea were all found to violate the trade agreement for “gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.”

The African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), passed in 2000, establishes trade preferences with certain eligible sub-Saharan Africa countries. It was enacted to “establish or make continual progress toward establishing a market-based economy, the rule of law, political pluralism, and the right to due process” in these countries. For a country to be eligible, they must “eliminate barriers to U.S. trade and investment, enact policies to reduce poverty, combat corruption and protect human rights.” If a country fails to do so, as in the case of Ethiopia, Mali, and Guinea, they are removed from the trade preference program.

The U.S. Trade Representative, which oversees the implementation of the program, reports that 38 of the 49 countries are eligible for AGOA benefits. In 2015, AGOA was extended for an additional 10 years through the Trade Preference Extension Act.

AGOA is one of the newer trade preference programs the United States engages in abroad. The Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), for example, is a program targeted at “many of the world’s poorest countries” to help them “climb out of poverty” on their own through enhanced trade programs. Established in 1974 under the Trade Act, GSP is the largest and oldest U.S. trade preference program. The United States also offers duty-free access to U.S. markets to eligible Caribbean countries through the Caribbean Basin Initiative.

These programs not only create an incentive for countries to promote rule of law, but they help a country diversify its economy to create a sustainable future. However, they can be abused. An investigation led by CNN found that Ethiopia had been taking advantage of the benefits of AGOA and able to funnel weapons to the Tigray region through their flagship commercial airline, one of the largest beneficiaries of AGOA in the country.

Since November 2020, the Ethiopian country has waged a deadly civil war in its Tigray region, killing tens of thousands and sending even more refugees to Sudan. Ethiopia’s textile industry will be the most impacted by the exclusion in AGOA. This will hamper the country’s ability to reform its economy into a light manufacturing hub for the world’s global fashion brands. Both Mali and Guinea were removed from the program for recent coups in their respective countries.

Internationally, trade preference programs are legalized by the World Trade Organization’s General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade “enabling clause.” This clause allows for member countries to “accord differential and more favorable treatment to developing countries.”

Trade preference programs like AGOA and GSP are distinct from free trade agreements. One of the biggest is that trade preferences are non-reciprocal. The countries the United States extends these programs to do not require the same benefits to be extended back to the U.S. But the United States garners even more power from these deals than a reciprocal trade deal ever could. The benefits extended to certain developing countries allow for their domestic economies to prosper and expand, but the threat of removal from the program creates a certain amount of dependence of those countries on the United States. The ability to leverage these programs is paramount for extending U.S. foreign policy throughout these regions.

Along those lines, at least two members of congress have taken a stand against the denial of Ethiopia to continue in the AGOA program. U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen and Congresswoman Karen Bass published a statement urging the Biden Administration to reverse the removal of Ethiopia from AGOA. The two lawmakers state that this move will “hurt [Ethiopia’s] most vulnerable and reverse hard-won economic gains without reducing hostilities in the ongoing civil war.” Van Hollen and Bass both argue that this move does nothing to stop the civil war in the region and targets those that are already gravely impacted.