The United States is eyeing up a critical mineral agreement with Ukraine in exchange for military aid, effectively weaponising resource access in its strategic calculus.
There was a post-coup grab for heavy rare earth minerals in Myanmar, for example, and a rush for new mining concessions in Haiti after the 2010 earthquake.
This is neocolonialism at its worst, dressed up as economic cooperation and development aid, and serves as a stark warning of how mineral wealth can become both a bargaining chip and a liability.
The United States is by no means the first.
China has long linked overseas development assistance (ODA) with access to critical raw materials, investing billions in infrastructure projects globally to secure stable supply chains. These projects often prioritise Chinese companies and labour, resulting in financial obligations for host nations while offering limited economic benefits.
The European Union has tied funding from its flagship ‘Global Gateway’ aid programme to trade prospects, including several mineral deals wrapped up in ‘Memorandums of Understanding’ (MoUs). These MoUs, such as one signed with Kazakhstan, function as an extra-legal trade agreement with no transparency or oversight, allowing for negotiations to occur behind closed doors.
The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) provides another case of this transactional approach. Facing an ongoing insurgency by the Rwandan-backed M23 rebels, the DRC is reportedly considering granting preferential access to its mineral wealth in return for military assistance.
In such cases, governments desperate for security support may be forced into unfavourable deals, leveraging their country’s long-term mineral sovereignty for short-term relief.
“
Countries should have the autonomy to develop their own resource industries with international partnerships that prioritise local economic benefits rather than extraction for export.
A bad deal
The outcomes are rarely positive. Research has shown that as developing countries become wealthier due to resource discoveries, they tend to receive more foreign aid. This keeps them trapped in economic dependency.
It is clear that aid is not necessarily a tool for development, but rather a mechanism for maintaining influence over resource-rich nations.
Instead of foreign corporations reaping the benefits, future deals should be built on mutual capacity and value-building.
Countries should have the autonomy to develop their own resource industries with international partnerships that prioritise local economic benefits rather than extraction for export. Domestic companies and governments must be involved from the outset, ensuring that local laws are respected, and fair taxation is enforced.
For example, Chile unveiled a lithium strategy in 2022 aimed at making sure that Chileans were the ultimate beneficiaries of the country’s lithium boom.
In addition, transparency mechanisms must be implemented to allow civil society organisations, independent watchdogs and local communities to scrutinise how mineral deals are negotiated.
For centuries, resource-rich nations have seen their wealth siphoned off by industrialised economies - first through colonial plundering and then exploitative trade arrangements.
The energy transition must not follow this same pattern. Fossil fuels concentrated the benefits and wealth in the hands of a few, while the poorest in our world reaped the disadvantages and pollution.
The shift to renewables must be based on justice. Ukraine should be able to rebuild its shattered society by using renewables from its own mineral resources. It must not be forced to remain dependent on fossil fuels while the West hoards the minerals it needs for the transition.
This story was published with permission from Thomson Reuters Foundation, the charitable arm of Thomson Reuters, that covers humanitarian news, climate change, resilience, women’s rights, trafficking and property rights. Visit https://www.context.news/.
