Under shadow of Trump warning, Africa pioneers non-dollar payments systems

NAIROBI, June 20 (Reuters) - Africa's push for local currency payments systems - once little more than an aspiration - is finally making concrete gains, bringing the promise of less costly trade to a continent long hobbled by resource-sapping dollar transactions.
But efforts to move away from the dollar face strong opposition and the threat of retaliation from U.S. President Donald Trump, who is determined to preserve it as the dominant currency for global trade.
The move by Africa to create payments systems that do not rely on the greenback mirrors a push by China to develop financial systems independent of Western institutions. Countries like Russia, which face economic sanctions, are also keen for an alternative to the dollar.
But while that movement has gained a sense of urgency due to shifting trade patterns and geopolitical realignments following President Trump's return to the White House, African advocates for payment alternatives are making their case based on costs.
"Our goal, contrary to what people might think, is not de-dollarisation," said Mike Ogbalu, chief executive of the Pan-African Payments and Settlements System, which allows parties to transact directly in local currencies, bypassing the dollar.
"If you look at African economies, you'll find that they struggle with availability for third-party global currencies to settle transactions," he said.
Africa's commercial banks typically rely on overseas counterparts, through so-called correspondent banking relationships, to facilitate settlements of international payments. That includes payments between African neighbours.
That adds significantly to transaction costs that, along with other factors like poor transport infrastructure, have made trade in Africa 50% more expensive than the global average, according to the UN Trade and Development agency.
It is also among the reasons so much of Africa's trade - 84%, according to a report by Mauritius-based MCB Group - is with external partners rather than between African nations.
"The existing financial network that is largely dollar-based has essentially become less effective for Africa, and costlier," said Daniel McDowell, a professor at Syracuse University in New York specialising in international finance.
According to data compiled by PAPSS, under the existing system of correspondent banks, a $200 million trade between two parties in different African countries is estimated to cost 10% to 30% of the value of the deal.
The shift to homegrown payments systems could cut the cost of that transaction to just 1%.
Systems like PAPSS allow a business in one country, Zambia for example, to pay for goods from another like Kenya, with both buyer and seller receiving payment in their respective currencies rather than converting them into dollars to complete the transaction.
Using currencies like the Nigerian naira, Ghanaian cedi or South Africa's rand for intra-Africa trade payments could save the continent $5 billion a year in hard currency, Ogbalu told Reuters.
Launched in January 2022 with just 10 participating commercial banks, PAPSS is today operational in 15 countries including Zambia, Malawi, Kenya and Tunisia, and now has 150 commercial banks in its network.
"We have also seen very significant growth in our transactions," Ogbalu said, without providing usage data.
The International Finance Corporation, the World Bank's private sector lending arm, has, meanwhile, started issuing loans to African businesses in local currencies.
It views the switch as imperative for their growth, relieving them from the currency risks of borrowing in dollars, said Ethiopis Tafara, IFC's vice-president for Africa.
"If they are not generating hard currency, a hard-currency loan imposes a burden that makes it difficult for them to succeed," he said.
Africa's campaign to boost regional payments systems has found a platform at the Group of 20 major economies, with South Africa leading the charge as holder of the G20's rotating presidency.
It held at least one session on boosting regional payments systems when South Africa hosted a meeting of G20 finance ministers and central bank governors. And South Africa wants it to follow up the talk with concrete actions. The next meeting of G20 finance officials is scheduled for mid-July.
"Some of the most expensive corridors for cross-border payments are actually found on the African continent," Lesetja Kganyago, South Africa's central bank governor, told Reuters during a G20 meeting in Cape Town in February.
"For us to function as a continent, it's important that we start trading and settling in our own currencies."
Talk of moving away from the dollar - either for trade or as a reserve currency - has drawn aggressive reactions from President Trump, however.
After BRICS - a grouping of nations including Russia, China, India and Brazil along with Africans like South Africa, Egypt and Ethiopia - weighed reducing dollar dependence and creating a common currency, Trump responded with threats of 100% tariffs.
"There is no chance that BRICS will replace the U.S. Dollar in International Trade, or anywhere else, and any Country that tries should say hello to Tariffs, and goodbye to America!," he wrote on Truth Social in January.
In the months since, Trump has demonstrated his willingness to use tariffs to pressure and punish allies and foes alike, a strategy that has upended global trade and geopolitics.
No matter its intentions in moving to more local currency transactions, Syracuse University's McDowell said Africa will struggle to distance itself from more politically motivated de-dollarisation efforts, like those led by China and Russia.
"The perception is likely to be that this is about geopolitics," he said.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Independent

28 minutes ago

• The Independent

What's the point of the UK talking to Tehran? More than you might think…

Europe's frantic diplomatic mission in Geneva may go down as one of its most arduous ventures on the world stage – and also one of its most consequential. The foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany must persuade a battered Iranian regime to kow-tow to the US and Israel over its nuclear ambitions, or face likely annihilation. All three European powers would, of course, love to see the back of supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei's corrupt and brutal theocracy. But they rightly fear the regime's capacity to unleash death and destruction before it goes. If Trump joins Israel in the war on Iran with US bunker-busting bombs on nuclear sites, and it succeeds in killing Khamenei, there will still be plenty of Iranian hardliners left who will be willing to fight to the death. Previous inhibitions will not apply. That could mean use of a dirty bomb in the West, or chaos unleashed in the Strait of Hormuz, through which 90 per cent of the Gulf's oil passes. For the world at large, the stakes are that high. British foreign secretary David Lammy – after meeting his US counterpart, Marco Rubio, and presidential envoy Steve Witkoff in Washington on Thursday – said that the UK was 'determined that Iran must never have a nuclear weapon". He thinks a window now exists within the next two weeks to achieve a diplomatic solution, as Trump dithers over whether to attack the regime, as US neo-cons and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu are demanding – or whether to heed the no-more-wars mantra of his Maga base. And so, in search of a diplomatic solution, Iran's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi is meeting with his European counterparts in Switzerland. But what can be achieved? For all their good intentions – French president Emmanuel Macron said the diplomats would make a "comprehensive, diplomatic and technical offer of negotiation" to Iran – the Europeans are unlikely to persuade the Iranians to pull back from the brink. At least not on their own. While one Iranian diplomat said Tehran was willing to pursue 'a balanced and pragmatic policy in its dealings with Europe, and engage rationally with both East and West', Araghchi said there will be 'no talks' with the US over Iran's nuclear programme while the Israeli bombardment continues: 'The Americans want negotiations and have sent messages several times, but we have clearly said that there is no room for dialogue.' But there is a useful point to holding talks on neutral ground with Tehran – and it's not simply to ask them nicely and face-to-face if they wouldn't mind stopping with their nuclear enrichment programme. Rather than relaying Trump and Netanyahu's demands to Iran, Geneva is about feeding back to the White House – translating Tehran's position for the US president. The Europeans aren't there to stop the war, they're Trump-whispering for the Ayatollah. It's not clear that European diplomats have the connections they need to have a greater role to play than this, useful though it will prove. But when it comes to a practical breakthrough, some of the Gulf states might, however. Behind the scenes, figures in what some dub 'Iran's deep state' – many of them members of the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – are talking to representatives of Oman and Qatar; it might be these Middle Eastern countries that can make the difference, in a second stage of dialogue. Qatar, for its part, will likely hold more sway over Washington than London or Paris. All the peacemakers, though, will be battling the plans of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Nothing less that the obliteration of the regime in Tehran will satisfy him. Worryingly, Israel's premier appears to have been joined by an increasingly pro-war Fox News, with Sean Hannity this week declaring that Iran 'is the biggest existential threat to the entire western world'. The West should have learnt by now – after the disasters in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya – that enforced regime change in the Middle East is best avoided. Andreas Krieg, a leading Iran expert at King's College London thinks regime change in Iran would 'not be clean or peaceful'. If the current theocracy falls, there is no significant alternative political-social structure to lead this country of 92 million into the light. The IRGC, a ruthless military-industrial complex, would not easily cede control of the Iranian economy. Instead, with 190,000 personnel and a similar number of Basij paramilitaries to call on, it might well create a military dictatorship. The West and Israel would be back to square one. And the Iranian people would be no better off. Ironically, the last time the West brought about regime change in Iran – by booting out, in 1953, the democratically elected premier Mohammad Mosaddegh (for which we have British Petroleum and the CIA to thank) – it laid the groundwork for the emergence of the current Islamic Republic in the 1970s. In between rounds of golf, as he ponders his next steps in the Middle East, you can't help wishing Potus would be shown – by Lammy or anyone else – the relevant pages of a history book. It is within the president's power to unleash hell – or stop history repeating itself. After the Geneva talks, let's hope he listens to what the Trump-whisperers tell him.

BBC News

41 minutes ago

• BBC News

Niger military leaders to nationalise uranium firm Somaïr

Niger's military junta says it will nationalise the majority French-owned local uranium company in the latest escalation in a row between the two is operated by French nuclear fuels company Orano, which Niger accuses of several "irresponsible acts". Since seizing power in 2023, Niger's military leaders have said they want to keep more local control of the country's mineral wealth, and have distanced themselves from France, the former colonial power, moving closer to is the world's seventh largest producer of uranium and has the highest-grade ores in Africa. "This nationalisation will allow for healthier and more sustainable management of the company and, consequently, optimal enjoyment of the wealth from mining resources by Nigeriens," the junta said in a statement. Orano has not yet company, which has operated in Niger for decades, owns a 63% stake in Somaïr but last year the military authorities seized operational control of the to the Reuters news agency, Orano, which is owned by the French state, has launched legal action against Niger over its a uranium mine became a pawn in the row between Niger and FranceNiger achieved independence from France in 1960 and the former colonial power managed to secure exclusive access to Niger's uranium supply through various say this was seen by many in Niger as a symbol of the country's continued domination by they also note that any uncertainty over the mining sector's future could threaten hundreds of jobs, as well as export earnings. You may also be interested in: WATCH: How has Niger changed since the coup?'France takes us for idiots' - Inside coup-hit NigerIs France to blame for coups in West Africa?Why young Africans are celebrating military takeovers Go to for more news from the African us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa or on Instagram at bbcafrica

Telegraph

44 minutes ago

• Telegraph

Has Trump ‘chickened out' on Iran? Five reasons for his two-week delay

On Tuesday evening, Donald Trump appeared poised to join Israel's war against Iran. Having left the G7 summit in Canada early, he convened an emergency meeting of his national security advisers. JD Vance, his vice-president and a staunch opponent of foreign military entanglements, signalled that the president was contemplating action. Mr Trump issued a series of increasingly bellicose warnings, demanding Iran's 'unconditional surrender'. 'We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding,' he wrote in a social media post. Yet within 48 hours, the president had pulled back. To some observers of US politics, this will seem like another instance of Mr Trump living up to his 'Taco' instincts – 'Trump Always Chickens Out', the acronym that so palpably infuriates him. There are, however, several plausible reasons for delay. Domestic disputes Mr Trump's flirtation with war has sharply divided his base. Maga loyalists, whose foreign policy instincts are overwhelmingly isolationist, are aghast at the prospect of their standard-bearer dragging them into a new conflict, especially after campaigning so forcefully against just such adventurism. 'Anyone slobbering for the US to become involved in the Israel/Iran war is not America First/Maga,' Marjorie Taylor Greene, one of Mr Trump's most ardent Congressional allies, posted on social media.