Latest news with #African Union
Zawya
6 days ago
- Business
- Zawya
Africa's minerals are being bartered for security: why it's a bad idea?
A US-brokered peace deal between the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda binds the two African nations to a worrying arrangement: one where a country signs away its mineral resources to a superpower in return for opaque assurances of security. The peace deal, signed in June 2025, aims to end three decades of conflict between the DRC and Rwanda. A key part of the agreement binds both nations to developing a regional economic integration framework. This arrangement would expand cooperation between the two states, the US government and American investors on 'transparent, formalized end-to-end mineral chains'. Despite its immense mineral wealth, the DRC is among the five poorest countries in the world. It has been seeking US investment in its mineral sector. The US has in turn touted a potential multi-billion-dollar investment programme to anchor its mineral supply chains in the traumatised and poor territory. The peace that the June 2025 deal promises, therefore, hinges on chaining mineral supply to the US in exchange for Washington's powerful – but vaguely formulated – military oversight. The peace agreement further establishes a joint oversight committee – with representatives from the African Union, Qatar and the US – to receive complaints and resolve disputes between the DRC and Rwanda. But beyond the joint oversight committee, the peace deal creates no specific security obligations for the US. The relationship between the DRC and Rwanda has been marred by war and tension since the bloody First (1996-1997) and Second (1998-2003) Congo wars. At the heart of much of this conflict is the DRC's mineral wealth. It has fuelled competition, exploitation and armed violence. This latest peace deal introduces a resources-for-security arrangement. Such deals aren't new in Africa. They first emerged in the early 2000s as resources-for-infrastructure transactions. Here, a foreign state would agree to build economic and social infrastructure (roads, ports, airports, hospitals) in an African state. In exchange, it would get a major stake in a government-owned mining company. Or gain preferential access to the host country's minerals. We have studied mineral law and governance in Africa for more than 20 years. The question that emerges now is whether a US-brokered resources-for-security agreement will help the DRC benefit from its resources. Based on our research on mining, development and sustainability, we believe this is unlikely. This is because resources-for-security is the latest version of a resource-bartering approach that China and Russia pioneered in countries such as Angola, the Central African Republic and the DRC. Resource bartering in Africa has eroded the sovereignty and bargaining power of mineral-rich nations such as the DRC and Angola. Further, resources-for-security deals are less transparent and more complicated than prior resource bartering agreements. DRC's security gaps The DRC is endowed with major deposits of critical minerals like cobalt, copper, lithium, manganese and tantalum. These are the building blocks for 21st century technologies: artificial intelligence, electric vehicles, wind energy and military security hardware. Rwanda has less mineral wealth than its neighbour, but is the world's third-largest producer of tantalum, used in electronics, aerospace and medical devices. For almost 30 years, minerals have fuelled conflict and severe violence, especially in eastern DRC. Tungsten, tantalum and gold (referred to as 3TG) finance and drive conflict as government forces and an estimated 130 armed groups vie for control over lucrative mining sites. Several reports and studies have implicated the DRC's neighbours – Rwanda and Uganda – in supporting the illegal extraction of 3TG in this region. The DRC government has failed to extend security over its vast (2.3 million square kilometres) and diverse territory (109 million people, representing 250 ethnic groups). Limited resources, logistical challenges and corruption have weakened its armed forces. This context makes the United States' military backing enormously attractive. But our research shows there are traps. What states risk losing Resources-for-infrastructure and resources-for-security deals generally offer African nations short-term stability, financing or global goodwill. However, the costs are often long-term because of an erosion of sovereign control. Here's how this happens: - certain clauses in such contracts can freeze future regulatory reforms, limiting legislative autonomy - other clauses may lock in low prices for years, leaving resource-selling states unable to benefit when commodity prices surge - arbitration clauses often shift disputes to international forums, bypassing local courts - infrastructure loans are often secured via resource revenues used as loan security. This effectively ringfences exports and undermines sovereign fiscal control. Examples of loss or near-loss of sovereignty from these sorts of deals abound in Africa. For instance, Angola's US$2 billion oil-backed loan from China Eximbank in 2004. This was repayable in monthly deliveries of oil, with revenues directed to Chinese-controlled accounts. The loan's design deprived Angolan authorities of decision-making power over that income stream even before the oil was extracted. These deals also fragment accountability. They often span multiple ministries (such as defence, mining and trade), avoiding robust oversight or accountability. Fragmentation makes resource sectors vulnerable to elite capture. Powerful insiders can manipulate agreements for private gain. In the DRC, this has created a violent kleptocracy, where resource wealth is systematically diverted away from popular benefit. Finally, there is the risk of re-entrenching extractive trauma. Communities displaced for mining and environmental degradation in many countries across Africa illustrate the long-standing harm to livelihoods, health and social cohesion. These are not new problems. But where extraction is tied to security or infrastructure, such damage risks becoming permanent features, not temporary costs. What needs to change Critical minerals are 'critical' because they're hard to mine or substitute. Additionally, their supply chains are strategically vulnerable and politically exposed. Whoever controls these minerals controls the future. Africa must make sure it doesn't trade that future away. In a world being reshaped by global interests in critical minerals, African states must not underestimate the strategic value of their mineral resources. They hold considerable leverage. But leverage only works if it is wielded strategically. This means: - investing in institutional strength and legal capacity to negotiate better deals - demanding local value creation and addition - requiring transparency and parliamentary oversight for minerals-related agreements - refusing deals that bypass human rights, environmental or sovereignty standards. Africa has the resources. It must hold on to the power they wield. All rights reserved. © 2022. Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (
Zawya
17-07-2025
- Business
- Zawya
How Africa's First Group of Twenty (G20) is Mainstreaming Gender
The G20 is a global economic forum with the potential to transform lives for women and girls globally. Here's why South Africa's leadership in 2025 represents a pivotal moment. We asked UN Women South Africa Multi-Country Office Programme Analyst Neo Mofokeng how South Africa's 2025 presidency could advance gender equality. What is the G20, and why should women care? The Group of Twenty (G20) is an international forum for governments and central bank governors from 19 countries, the European Union, and the African Union. It was established in 1999 to bring together the world's major economies to discuss and promote international financial stability and sustainable economic growth. It brings together the world's largest economies, representing 67 per cent of the global population and 85 per cent of global GDP. When G20 countries make decisions, they don't just affect stock markets; they directly impact whether women can access credit to start businesses, find decent jobs, or receive social protection during crises. From climate financing to digital transformation, the G20's policies ripple through national economies, determining whether women are empowered or excluded from economic opportunities. When these countries and regional entities commit to gender-responsive policies, the effects are systemic, not symbolic. What makes South Africa's G20 presidency historic? South Africa's G20 presidency in 2025 marks a critical moment as it is the first time an African country has led the forum. This leadership comes just five years before the 2030 deadline for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), bringing renewed urgency to accelerate progress on SDGs, particularly SDG 5: Gender Equality. Under the theme "Solidarity, Equality, Sustainability", South Africa's presidency directly aligns with the global agenda for gender equality and women's empowerment. It is worth noting that South Africa has prioritized debt sustainability for low-income countries – a key gender justice issue, as debt crises often trigger austerity measures that disproportionately affect women and girls by reducing access to healthcare, education, and social protection. What does gender mainstreaming mean in the G20 context? While the G20 includes a dedicated Working Group on Women's Empowerment, true progress requires gender mainstreaming, which is the embedding of gender perspectives across all working groups, not just the one explicitly focused on women's issues. This means finance ministers considering how monetary policies affect women differently, infrastructure discussions evaluating women's mobility and safety, and trade negotiations assessing impacts on women entrepreneurs. There is no such thing as gender-neutral economic policy - all decisions have differentiated impacts on women and men. What are the priorities for gender mainstreaming for this year's G20? To carry forward the Global South priorities from the previous G20 presidencies of Indonesia, India, and Brazil, the following priorities were adopted as the focus areas for gender mainstreaming into this G20 presidency. The first priority is to shift policy perspectives on the care economy around paid and unpaid care work and household responsibilities. The second is to promote financial inclusion of and for women, and the third priority is to address gender-based violence and femicide, which threaten the lives and livelihoods of women. How is progress on gender equality measured in the G20? Despite the growing recognition of the importance of gender equality, tracking progress remains challenging. The most prominent commitment is the 2014 "25x25 goal", reducing the gender gap in labour force participation by 25 per cent by 2025. As this deadline approaches, it serves as a critical test case for G20 accountability. However, other dimensions like unpaid care work, gender-based violence, and women's leadership receive less attention. Gender-related commitments sometimes appear in one year's declaration but vanish in the next, making long-term progress difficult to track. This is another reason why mainstreaming gender in the G20 is so important. What makes the G20's influence on gender equality so significant? In a world of countless international forums, the G20's influence is unmatched. When G20 countries commit to closing gender gaps in labour force participation or expanding women's access to finance, the ripple effects shift global economic patterns and influence international norms far beyond G20 borders. The G20 serves as a strategic lever with the capacity to drive policy coherence by integrating gender equality across economic, climate, and digital agendas, foster shared accountability through joint monitoring, and mobilize financing with intent, ensuring gender equality is resourced, not just referenced. What is UN Women's role in the G20 process? UN Women plays a pivotal role by advocating for gender mainstreaming across all G20 policy areas, providing technical expertise and data to working groups, and engaging with key stakeholders like the Women 20 (W20) engagement group. The organization works to ensure that gender perspectives are systematically mainstreamed into G20 discussions, communiqués, and policy frameworks, with a strong focus on women's economic empowerment, financial inclusion, and ending violence against women and girls. How has UN Women supported South Africa's G20 presidency? UN Women, through its South Africa Multi-Country Office, has provided comprehensive technical and financial support to the South African Government, made possible by backing from The Ford Foundation, the Government of Ireland, and the UN Women Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office. This support has been crucial in advancing gender equality within South Africa's G20 agenda. Youth Engagement: In February 2025, UN Women partnered with the South African Institute of International Affairs youth division to organize the "Bridging the Gap for Global Impact" workshop in Johannesburg, bringing together 150 young leaders aged 18-25. The workshop provided tools for effectively engaging decision-makers and included panel discussions on gender advocacy, enabling participants to develop strategies for promoting gender equality. Transforming Patriarchal Masculinities: In March 2025, UN Women hosted a dialogue on "Transforming Patriarchal Masculinities for a Gender-Equal World" in Pretoria, bringing together 150 students from universities, technical and vocational education and training institutions, and high schools. This dialogue compiled youth recommendations for the Women's Empowerment Ministerial Working Group meeting. Technical Working Group Support: UN Women provided crucial support to all three Empowerment of Women Working Group meetings throughout 2025. The February virtual meeting focused on setting the priorities of the care economy, financial inclusion, and gender-based violence. The May meeting in Sun City emphasized advancing financial inclusion and developing a Guidelines Framework for mainstreaming women's priorities in global financial systems. The July meeting at Kruger National Park concentrated on the care economy – recognizing, reducing, and redistributing care work. Private Sector Engagement: UN Women supported a groundbreaking Private Sector Breakfast in May, bringing together corporate leaders, investors, and entrepreneurs to align business practices with G20 gender equality goals. Grounded in the Women's Empowerment Principles, this initiative moved beyond symbolic participation to actionable commitments. Disability Inclusion: Additionally, UN Women supported disability inclusion initiatives and the W20 inception meeting, demonstrating comprehensive engagement across all aspects of South Africa's gender equality agenda. What does success look like for gender equality in the G20? Success in 2025 means moving beyond rhetoric to gender-transformative policies with robust accountability mechanisms. It requires recognizing gender as intersectional, addressing the diverse experiences of all women and gender-diverse individuals across lines of race, class, disability, and age. At the current pace, it will take over 123 years to close gender gaps globally. The G20 has the power to change this trajectory, but only if gender equality becomes a lived reality, not just a shared goal. Distributed by APO Group on behalf of UN Women - Africa.
