Kyle McCarter: Deal will secure both US, Kenya interests

Some critics have said the new US-Kenya trade deal is more about America first, with little for Kenya. Is that the case?

Well, it is about America first. It is also about Kenya first, and I expect every Kenyan coming to the negotiating table to have the same mentality. Even though it is about each country’s interests, the objective here must be a win-win for all; that we come to an agreement to enlarge our respective economies together, benefit one another and ensure our countries become less dependent upon others. And that can take place so that where we look for other people on pharmaceutical, manufacturing and agricultural goods, then we should be looking to Kenya for these. Aid many times makes us dependent on other people and we do not want that for Kenya. It’s not an easy thing to do, as both donors and the recipients get used to it. If we make the trade bigger, then it will benefit more sectors, creating a model for the next agreement.

The Africa Growth Opportunity Act (Agoa) ends in 2025. Will this new trade deal offer better prospects for Kenya?

Indeed, Agoa is going away in five year’s time and we must be ready with an agreement that not only equalises it, but also surpasses it. Agoa is kind of a one-way agreement. It is what we offered to Kenya and other African countries, but we want this new agreement to go both ways and make us less dependent on other countries.

Is it US policy to rework multilateral agreements to bilateral?

Kenya did not take advantage of Agoa as it could have. We want the new agreement to be bigger than just an exempted tariff on agriculture products. Evidence of this is what we see happening parallel to the negotiations. I can tell you, there is already an early harvest list of potential start-ups and industries from technology to textiles, that investors are looking at, to see how that fits into the current negotiations. So, ideally, when the negotiations are done, then billions of dollars can be invested into the country.

What we are saying to the investors is that this is a safe place to invest and they can calculate their returns. What we are now doing with the new trade deal is offering investors a haven and opportunity to bring to Kenya. I keep telling the US firms to be the first to come and get the cream of the opportunities here. We have a hard working human resource, well-educated and passionate. This is what the investors need, backed up by such a win-win bilateral agreement.

Tying of foreign policy issues like the Israel question to the trade agreement is new to Kenya. Why is this so important to the US in this trade deal, and where does that leave Kenya?

I think we need to make it clear that this issue has never been on the table regarding these negotiations. This was mentioned in another trade agreements and not the one we are doing with Kenya. People sometimes exaggerate, but we also need to understand this is a template language as required by the US Congress in all our trade negotiations. For clarity, this is not anything that has been brought up in the Kenya-US trade negotiations.

Shall we now see Kenya pushing for a change in the plastics law, now that one of the biggest US lobby groups is said to have indicated the same?

The American Chemistry Council never mentioned Kenya’s approach to dealing with plastics nor its intention to have its laws changed in their comments. Reports that Kenya could be forced to rescind its ban on domestic plastic ban are false. These are decisions that Kenya must make, we will not at any point try to interfere, nor will any part of this agreement impose conditions to Kenya over this. We want them to make those decisions on their own.

We may not make the same decisions in the United States. The truth is Kenya has a sovereign right to establish its own Environmental Protection. We also have a lot of that in the US, much more than Kenya has today.

You have been on record for pushing the mantra, “From aid to trade”. Will this new trade deal help the US in achieving this?

Our vision is that the Kenyan people will no longer be a beneficiary of foreign aid but want them to have more trade opportunities so that they are able to share with the rest of the region. To us, this is the most respectful way to deal with a partner. 

Currently, trade between Kenya and the US is balanced, at a ratio of 1:1, as compared to the skewed one with China at 34:1. Even though the US-Kenya trade is balanced, it is not big enough to enable both countries see their businesses thrive.

There has been talk of the US warning Kenya against currency manipulation as part of the trade negotiations. What prompted this?

The governor of the Central Bank of Kenya did a great job of making sure this is not the case. This is also a template language in all our negotiation documents as required by Congress and a good example is the one we have with the UK and Nafta, where the language is identical. There are no accusations here of currency manipulation.

It is simply a statement that is part of every agreement, which discourages actions that directly or indirectly prejudice currency or commercial activity.

So, it is not something we are accusing anyone of, but simply part of our template negotiation language.

Kenya is now pushing for Public-Private Partnership and the trade negotiations have this as one of its key objectives. Do you think this will help promote the PPP model?

Yes, it will. We believe we will be able to provide the country with the most decent models that also limits its level of debt. When we do that, we will also ensure technology transfer happens. We expect soon an announcement about some roads being built. We will show that this can be done in a professional manner, while adhering to international standards.

We do not think we will put Kenya in a worse debt situation than they are. The US does not have the predatory lending habits, so even if it takes longer to have an agreement, so be it, but at the end of the day, we shall have the country’s interest first.

There is fear the US-Kenya trade deal could lead to dumping of American made products in the country, is this real?

The quest for growth in both countries will be centred around innovation. I do not think we will see a scenario of dumping innovation. This is what drove infrastructure development in the US and that is the backbone of this agreement. So, to us, this fear of dumping is unfounded.

Chinese trade with Africa and Kenya has grown exponentially in the past few years and this has in many ways unsettled the US. Isn’t Washington playing catch-up, or trying to recoup its losses?

I do not think so. On the other hand, we should face the fact that the US should have come in quicker. But now we are here to make this bigger and better. We are here to do this in a respectful way.

We want to walk the self-reliance path, so that we can move from aid to trade. 

Do you think the US will give Kenya value for money once this trade deal comes into effect, especially on the technology front?

In any kind of exchange, you must look at value and how much trust exists between two parties. When it comes to the security of information and the nation itself, we think protecting the data is important and we come with the most trusted technology, not only for us but our partners.

Have you raised this concern with the Kenyan government?

Yes, we have. To us, it falls back to that value proposition of how much you trust these firms with your data. We believe we can still be competitive.

Has the United States sought Kenya’s authorisation for drone strikes in the country, and the US military base in the country?

We remain committed to fighting terrorism and specifically al-Shabaab.