logo
Scramble for critical minerals

Scramble for critical minerals

Observer3 days ago
The world's superpowers have developed a seemingly insatiable appetite for the critical minerals that are essential to the ongoing energy and digital transitions, including rare-earth metals (for permanent magnets), cobalt (for batteries), and uranium (for nuclear reactors). The International Energy Agency forecasts that demand for these minerals will more than quadruple by 2040 for use in clean-energy technologies alone. But, in their race to control these vital resources, China, Europe, and the United States risk causing serious harm to the countries that possess them.
As it stands, China is leading the pack, having gained ownership or control over an estimated 60-80 per cent of the critical minerals that are needed for industry (such as for magnets) and the green transition. This control extends across the supply chain: China is heavily invested in mining across Africa, Central Asia, and Latin America, and has been building up its processing capabilities.
For Western powers, China's quasi-monopoly over critical minerals looks like an economic and national-security threat. This fear is not unfounded. In December 2024, China restricted exports of critical minerals to the US in retaliation for US restrictions on exports of advanced microchips to China.
Since then, US President Donald Trump has forced Ukraine to relinquish a significant share of its critical minerals to the US in what he presents as repayment for American support in its fight against Russia. Trump also wants US sovereignty over mineral-rich Greenland, to the dismay of Denmark. And he has suggested that Canada, with all its natural resources, become America's 51st state. The European Union, for its part, has sought its own mining contracts, such as in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).
From the Scramble for Africa in the nineteenth century to Western attempts to claim Middle Eastern oil in the twentieth century, such resource grabs are hardly new. They reflect a fundamental asymmetry: less industrialised developing economies tend to consume fewer resources than they produce, whereas the opposite is true for developed economies – and, nowadays, China.
In principle, this asymmetry creates ideal conditions for mutually beneficial agreements: industrialised economies get the resources they desire, and non-industrialised economies get a windfall, which they can use to bolster their own development. But, in reality, vast natural-resource endowments have proven to be more of a curse than a blessing, with resource-rich countries often developing more slowly than their resource-poor counterparts.
A key reason for this is that developed economies have more economic clout, advanced technology, and military might – all of which they bring to bear to acquire the resources they seek. For example, European imperial powers used steam-engine technology to help them explore and exploit Africa for resources like copper, tin, rubber, timber, diamonds, and gold in the nineteenth century. This, together with more advanced weaponry and other technologies, meant that, far from offering local communities fair compensation for their valuable resources, European powers could subjugate those communities and use their labour to extract and transport what they wanted.
But even countries that are exporting their resources for a profit have often struggled to make progress on development, not only because of imbalanced deals with more powerful resource importers, but also because their governments have often mismanaged the associated bonanzas. It does not help that resource-rich countries and regions often grapple with internal and external conflicts.
Consider the mineral-rich provinces of the DRC, such as Katanga and North Kivu, which have long suffered from violence and lawlessness, fuelled by neighbours such as Rwanda and Uganda. Today, the advance of the Rwanda-backed M23 rebels is fuelling bloodshed in eastern Congo – and creating an opportunity for outside powers to gain access to critical minerals. The DRC-Rwanda peace agreement brokered by the Trump administration promises precisely such access to the US, in exchange for security guarantees.
But the resource curse is not inescapable, especially for countries with strong outward-facing institutions to manage the economy's external relations, including its resource sector's ability to attract investment and generate revenues for the state, and inward-facing institutions to govern how those revenues are used. If a country is to translate its resource endowments into economic development and improvements in human well-being, both have a critical role to play.
Outward-facing institutions must negotiate fair and transparent mining contracts with multinational corporations and strengthen local governments' ability to do the same. Such contracts should include local-content requirements, which keep more high-value-added processing activities at home, increase local employment and strengthen the capacity of local suppliers and contractors. Since acquiring a 15 per cent stake in De Beers, Botswana has sought to ensure that diamond cutting – not just mining – occurs domestically, which requires inward-facing institutions to deliver adequate investment in these capabilities.
Inward-facing institutions must also manage risks raised by resource extraction, from health and environmental damage (deforestation, biodiversity loss, pollution) to labour-rights violations (including child labour). Unfortunately, as it stands, many mineral-rich countries are falling far short, leading some to advocate boycotts of critical minerals coming from conflict zones or countries using forced labour. While such boycotts are unlikely to sway these governments, they could convince multinationals and foreign governments to demand better enforcement of environmental and social standards from countries with which they do business.
Ultimately, however, it is up to mineral-rich countries to defend their interests and make the most of their endowments. This starts with efforts to strengthen institutions. @Project Syndicate, 2025
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

India may face annual export loss of $5-6.75 billion because of 25% tariffs imposed by US: Report
India may face annual export loss of $5-6.75 billion because of 25% tariffs imposed by US: Report

Times of Oman

time2 hours ago

  • Times of Oman

India may face annual export loss of $5-6.75 billion because of 25% tariffs imposed by US: Report

New Delhi: India may face an annual export loss of $5 to $6.75 billion if demand declines by 20 to 30 per cent because of 15 per cent tariff imposed by US, said a report by Ventura Securities. Given the country's FY25 GDP of around USD 3.3 trillion (Rs 287 lakh crore), this shortfall could reduce GDP growth by approximately 0.15 to 0.2 per cent, the report added. It further said that India's industry is expected to face short- to medium-term challenges due to US tariffs, however, during this period, the sector is likely to step up efforts to diversify its markets, with aim to maintain growth momentum. US President Donald Trump has imposed 25 per cent tariff on goods from India and an additional penalty if India imports crude from Russia. However, Ventura report highlighted that even with a 25 per cent US tariff, India is still competitive. "While export volumes are bound to be impacted, India can cushion much of the impact by leveraging the recently concluded FTAs with Australia, UAE, EFTA, ASEAN, and SAARC countries," the report added. While the sanctions are effective from today, higher tariffs will be imposed from August 7 onwards till a bilateral trade agreement is signed with the U.S. India continues to engage with the American counterparts to iron out the trade deal. "Negotiations are expected to resume mid-August and the deal is likely to be clinched by October. In this case, the pain would be relatively short-term with an improved trade trajectory," the report added. Over the past few months, India and the US have been negotiating for an interim trade deal, but there were some reservations from the Indian side on the US demand for opening up the agricultural and dairy sectors for the US. Agriculture and dairy are critical for India as these two sectors provide livelihood opportunities to a large section of its people. India reportedly faces US demands, including allowing remanufactured goods, opening up agriculture and dairy, accepting genetically modified (GM) feed, and adopting US rules on digital trade and product standards. Experts have stated that the decision will have a varied impact on different sectors.

Trump's tariffs: What has changed and who is affected
Trump's tariffs: What has changed and who is affected

Observer

time5 hours ago

  • Observer

Trump's tariffs: What has changed and who is affected

Washington - President Donald Trump's administration unveiled a range of new tariffs Thursday due to take effect in one week on most US trading partners. The import levies ranged as high as 41 percent on Syria and included a hike on Canadian imports from the current 25 percent to 35 percent. AFP takes a look at the most recent developments: - Canada - Trump said Thursday the United States would raise tariffs on certain Canadian goods from 25 percent to 35 percent. He had warned of trade consequences for Canada after Prime Minister Mark Carney announced plans to recognize a Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly in September. Unlike the new levies affecting dozens of other economies, there is no delay, and these are set to begin Friday, according to a White House fact sheet. Products covered by the 2020 United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement -- which covers a wide swath of items -- will be exempt from the tariff rate. Trump's order cited Canada's failure to "cooperate in curbing the ongoing flood of fentanyl and other illicit drugs" as well as its "retaliation" against his measures. Canada's Carney said his government was "disappointed" with the hike, citing its efforts to crack down on fentanyl and increase border security. - Mexico - Trump said he would delay imposing higher tariffs on Mexican imports, pushing back their rollout by 90 days. The decision came after he spoke with Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum. The US leader had originally threatened to raise tariffs on Mexican products from 25 percent to 30 percent come August 1, citing a lack of progress in flow of illicit fentanyl. Goods entering the United States under the existing North American trade deal were spared. - South Korea - Just days before the tariff deadline, Washington and Seoul reached a deal to avert a 25 percent duty on South Korean goods, bringing the level down to 15 percent instead. In announcing on Wednesday, Trump said the country also committed to $350 billion in investments and to purchase $100 billion worth of liquefied natural gas (LNG) or other energy resources. The 15 percent rate matches levels determined from US accords with Japan and the European Union. Tariffs on automobiles will also stay at 15 percent, Seoul said. - Brazil - Trump's measures against Brazil are openly political, overriding long-standing trade ties. He announced 50 percent tariffs on Brazilian goods, although delaying their imposition from August 1 to August 6 and exempting products like orange juice and civil aircraft. The tariffs marked Trump's follow-through on threats to use American economic power to punish Brazil -- and Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes -- for what he has called a "witch hunt" against his far-right ally and former president Jair Bolsonaro. - India - Trump on Wednesday said Indian goods would face a 25 percent US tariff starting August 1, slightly below an earlier threatened level. The country would also face an unspecified "penalty" over New Delhi's purchases of Russian weapons and energy, Trump said on social media. "I don't care what India does with Russia. They can take their dead economies down together, for all I care," Trump added in a separate post. - European Union, Switzerland - EU exports to the United States are set to face tariffs of 15 percent on most products after both sides struck a deal to avoid a higher 30 percent level. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said some agricultural products would be exempt under the agreement struck on Sunday, though she did not specify which. But France's President Emmanuel Macron pledged to be "firm" in follow-up talks. "It's not the end of it," Macron told ministers during a cabinet meeting. Washington also announced a 39 percent tariff on Swiss goods, higher than the 31 percent rate it had been threatening to implement. The Swiss government said Friday it would negotiate with the United States to try to avoid harm to its key pharmaceutical industry. - China - Notably excluded from the drama was China, which faces an August 12 deadline instead, when duties could bounce back to higher levels. Washington and Beijing at one point brought tit-for-tat tariffs to triple-digit levels, but both countries have agreed to temporarily lower these duties and are working to extend their truce. China on Friday warned that US protectionism "harms the interests of all parties". "The Chinese side's opposition to tariffs has been consistent and clear," foreign ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun said, adding: "There is no winner in a tariff war or trade war."

Trump warns Medvedev to "watch his words," calls him "failed former President of Russia"
Trump warns Medvedev to "watch his words," calls him "failed former President of Russia"

Times of Oman

time8 hours ago

  • Times of Oman

Trump warns Medvedev to "watch his words," calls him "failed former President of Russia"

Washington: US President Donald Trump issued a warning to former Russian President and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev asking him to "watch his words," after the latter criticised Trump's foreign policy, The Hill reported. "I don't care what India does with Russia," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "They can take their dead economies down together, for all I care. We have done very little business with India, their Tariffs are too high, among the highest in the World." "Likewise, Russia and the USA do almost no business together. Let's keep it that way, and tell Medvedev, the failed former President of Russia, who thinks he's still President, to watch his words. He's entering very dangerous territory!" the president added. Since returning to office in January, Trump and his administration have pushed for an end to the more than three-year war between Russia and Ukraine, without much success. At times, the president has aired frustration with both sides over lack of progress on a ceasefire agreement, despite several rounds of peace talks. Earlier this month, he gave the two nations a 50-day deadline to reach a deal, threatening Russia and its allies, including India, with increased sanctions. Re-upping the pressure on Wednesday, Trump said he would impose a 25 percent tariff on India as a penalty for purchasing Russian military equipment and gas. He also signaled he could shorten the timeline -- which now falls in early September -- for the Kremlin to agree to a peace deal and end its onslaught on Ukraine, which has largely been on board with ceasefire proposals, The Hill reported. The president also said Monday, during a sit-down conversation with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer in Scotland, that he could start imposing sanctions on Russia in "about 10 or 12 days," according to The Hill. Medvedev, in response, knocked Trump for "playing the ultimatum game." "Trump's playing the ultimatum game with Russia: 50 days or 10... He should remember 2 things: 1. Russia isn't Israel or even Iran. 2. Each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war," Medvedev, deputy chair of Russia's Security Council, wrote on the social platform X. "Not between Russia and Ukraine, but with his own country."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store