The U.S. and Panama have deepened security cooperation, with agreements allowing U.S. troops to deploy to bases along the Panama Canal for training and operations. This move is framed as a response to perceived Chinese influence, particularly through commercial operations like ports managed by Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison Holdings at Balboa and Cristóbal. However, Panama retains sovereignty over the canal, and no evidence suggests China directly controls it.

China is the second-largest user of the canal after the U.S., and Chinese firms have operated ports under commercial agreements. A 2021 port concession renewal with CK Hutchison is under scrutiny in Panama, with lawsuits pending against officials involved. Meanwhile, a proposed $19 billion deal to sell these ports to a U.S.-led consortium, including BlackRock, has faced delays, partly due to China’s antitrust review, signaling Beijing’s pushback. The Trump administration has prioritized reducing China’s regional presence, with rhetoric about “taking back” the canal. Despite claims of toll-free passage for U.S. warships, Panama’s President José Raúl Mulino and the Canal Authority have denied any changes to fee structures, emphasizing neutrality under the 1999 treaty.

The U.S. has not secured permanent bases, as Panama opposes this, but rotational troop deployments are permitted. Mulino has rejected assertions of Chinese control, exited China’s Belt and Road Initiative in February 2025, and cooperated with the U.S. on security. However, Panama remains cautious about its sovereignty, with public protests against perceived U.S. overreach. While the U.S. has strengthened its strategic foothold, China’s influence is primarily economic, not military, and Panama’s neutrality limits how far either power can dominate. The canal’s global importance—handling 40% of U.S. container traffic and 5% of world trade—means Panama balances both nations carefully.

No single deal has fundamentally altered the canal’s status, but U.S. moves have heightened tensions with China, leaving Panama navigating a delicate geopolitical tightrope. Always dig into primary sources like treaty texts or Canal Authority statements for clarity—narratives can twist faster than a ship in the Miraflores Locks. The U.S. seeks to maintain its global hegemony, while China aims to expand its influence, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. Key flashpoints include Taiwan, the South China Sea, and control over critical trade routes like the Panama Canal.

The U.S. counters China’s Belt and Road Initiative with alliances like AUKUS and the Quad, while China strengthens ties with nations in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The U.S. and China compete for dominance in global markets. China’s rapid growth—its GDP is roughly 75% of the U.S.’s in nominal terms—threatens American economic primacy. Trade wars, tariffs, and sanctions (e.g., on Huawei) reflect efforts to curb each other’s advantages. China’s control over critical supply chains (rare earths, semiconductors) clashes with U.S. pushes for reshoring and “friend-shoring.”

Both nations vie for supremacy in AI, quantum computing, 5G, and biotech. The U.S. restricts China’s access to advanced chips and tech, citing security concerns, while China invests heavily in domestic innovation to reduce reliance on Western tech. Cybersecurity and data governance (e.g., TikTok bans) are also battlegrounds. The U.S. promotes liberal democracy, while China’s authoritarian model under the Communist Party offers an alternative. This fuels disputes over human rights (e.g., Xinjiang, Hong Kong) and global influence, with each accusing the other of undermining international norms.

Both nations modernize their arsenals, with China expanding its navy and hypersonic missiles, and the U.S. bolstering its Pacific presence. Defense budgets are massive—U.S. at ~$877 billion, China at ~$292 billion (2024 estimates)—but China’s lower costs and focus on asymmetric capabilities narrow the gap. The canal exemplifies their rivalry. The U.S. views Chinese commercial presence (e.g., port operations) as a strategic risk, prompting security agreements with Panama. China, meanwhile, leverages economic ties to maintain influence, though Panama’s neutrality limits either side’s control.

The rivalry shapes alliances, trade blocs, and climate cooperation. While outright conflict is avoided, proxy tensions and economic decoupling raise risks. Both sides have domestic pressures—U.S. populism, China’s economic slowdown—that amplify posturing. The rivalry isn’t zero-sum but drives global uncertainty.

Nigeria has a robust leather industry, particularly centered in Kano, Aba and Sokoto predominantly produces high-quality leather, including the renowned Red Sokoto goatskin. This leather is exported extensively, with about 90% of production going to countries like Italy and Spain, where it’s used by luxury brands such as Louis Vuitton, Gucci, and Ralph Lauren amongst others. Despite its global reputation, Nigeria’s leather is often labeled as “Italian” or “genuine” leather due to final processing abroad, which obscures its origins.

Local brands like Winston Leather are shifting this narrative by creating finished luxury goods in Nigeria. Winston, for instance, supplies leather to high-end fashion houses and has started producing affordable, high-quality accessories to compete globally. The industry employs over 750,000 workers, with potential to generate over $1 billion by 2025 if fully harnessed, according to projections from the Nigerian Economic Summit Group. Challenges include infrastructure deficits, inconsistent quality standards, and limited access to capital, which hinder local production of finished goods.

However, initiatives like the Nigerian Institute of Leather Science and Technology (NILEST) are training artisans, and events like the Lagos Leather Fair promote local craftsmanship. With investment in sustainable practices and better infrastructure, Nigeria could capture a larger share of the global luxury market while retaining more value domestically. Transforming Nigeria’s leather industry into a multimillion-dollar powerhouse involves strategic interventions across the value chain, from raw material processing to global market penetration. Currently, 90% of Nigeria’s leather is exported as raw or semi-finished goods, fetching $5-$10 per unit, while finished luxury products abroad yield 1000%+ markups.

Invest in local tanneries and factories to produce high-end goods like bags, shoes, and accessories. Nigeria government should encourage brands like Winston Leather and Nyashii to scale production of luxury items. Support micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs) with subsidies and training to create globally competitive products. Unreliable electricity and poor transportation inflate costs. Public-private partnerships can fund solar-powered tanneries and better road networks, especially in Kano and Aba.

Upgrade tanneries with automated machinery to boost efficiency and quality. Collaborate with international partners (e.g., Italy, China) for technology transfers. Inconsistent curing and processing lower Nigeria’s leather value abroad, with exports often discounted 10-20%. Establish rigorous quality control systems and certifications (e.g., ISO standards) to ensure premium pricing. Expand the Nigerian Institute of Leather Science and Technology’s training programs to standardize artisanal skills and promote sustainable practices.

Leverage Nigeria’s rising middle class and campaigns like “Made in Nigeria” to drive domestic sales of affordable, durable leather goods. Use platforms like the Lagos Leather Fair and NEPC’s trade missions to connect Nigerian brands with global buyers. Target niche markets for ethically sourced, sustainable leather. Promote Nigerian leather on global platforms like Amazon or Alibaba, as seen with brands like Nyashii, to reach luxury consumers directly. The popular consumption of cowhide as “ponmo” reduces available raw materials. Incentivize alternatives (e.g., goat or sheep hides) and educate consumers on economic trade-offs without banning cultural practices.

Reinstate and refine the Export Expansion Grant (EEG) for finished leather goods, not just raw exports. Reduce import tariffs on tanning chemicals to lower production costs. Scale NILEST’s nine extension centers to train youth and women in modern leathercraft, creating 500,000+ jobs. Fund R&D for eco-friendly tanning (e.g., vegetable-based methods) to meet global sustainability demands. Partner with universities for innovations like leather-textile hybrids (e.g., Adire-leather goods).

Create industrial parks in Kano, Aba, and Sokoto with tax incentives to attract American, Chinese, or European firms. Support startups like Nyashii through pitch events like Lagos Leather Fair’s Pitch-A-LeatherBiz to secure funding for scaling. The industry could surpass $1 billion by 2025, as projected by NESG, and potentially reach $17.5 billion annually with full value chain optimization. This would make leather a top non-oil export, reducing oil dependency. Scaling could employ over 1 million workers, particularly youth and women, across animal husbandry, tanning, and manufacturing, cutting unemployment currently ~5% in Q2 2024.

Higher exports of finished goods to Europe, Asia, and Africa would bolster Nigeria’s foreign reserves, stabilizing the naira. In northern states like Kano and Sokoto, where poverty rates exceed 40%, leather industry growth could lift thousands into stable incomes. MSMEs led by women, like Femi Handbags, would gain from training and market access, fostering gender equity. Promoting traditional craftsmanship e.g., Sokoto’s Kalabawa leather alongside modern designs would strengthen Nigeria’s cultural identity globally. Increased tanning could strain water resources and generate chemical waste if not managed. Nigeria must adopt eco-friendly methods to avoid penalties in markets like the EU.

Leading in sustainable leather could attract premium buyers, as global demand for ethical fashion grows (projected to hit $15 billion by 2030). A “Made in Nigeria” luxury label could rival Italian leather, with brands like Winston Leather gaining traction in high-end markets. Nigeria could outpace Ethiopia and Kenya in Africa’s leather market, capturing 20-30% of the continent’s $5 billion industry by 2030. Without inclusive policies, profits may concentrate among large firms, marginalizing small artisans. Cooperatives and fair-trade models can ensure broad benefits. Global luxury demand fluctuates with economic cycles. Diversifying into mid-range and mass-market products can hedge risks.

Policies discouraging ponmo could face resistance. Community engagement and alternative livelihoods for ponmo traders. The Desolation of Smaug grossed $258.4 million in North America and $958.4 million worldwide. By focusing on value addition, infrastructure, quality, and market access, Nigeria’s leather industry could evolve from a $645 million sector to a $1-17.5 billion giant, driving economic diversification, job creation, and global brand equity. However, success hinges on balancing growth with sustainability, inclusivity, and cultural sensitivity to maximize benefits and minimize risks.

Omo vs Ariel detergent.

Scottrade vs Robinhood.

Peak milk vs Cowbell. |

What happened there?

Fractionalization and tokenization: “a process of breaking down a single asset into smaller, tradable units. These units represent a portion of the original asset’s ownership and allow multiple investors to share ownership”.

And sachetization: refers to the “practice of offering products in small, affordable sachets, primarily in emerging markets where low-income consumers have limited access to goods. This approach allows companies to reach a wider customer base and increases market share by making products more accessible to price-sensitive segments”.

Today, join us at Tekedia Mini-MBA as we discuss this concept which has evolved to be used  in the context of assets like real estate, artwork, and digital assets like bitcoin.

Omo went, Ariel rose. Scottrade crashed, Robinhood ascended. Peak ignored the bottom of the pyramid, Cowbell took some. Join us today.