Latest news with #AfricanUnion
Daily Maverick
7 hours ago
- Business
- Daily Maverick
SA's critical minerals strategy a shopping list to revive existing carbon-intensive mining economy
South Africa's recently released critical minerals and metals strategy continues to prop up carbon-intensive processing and manufacturing activities, while giving a nod to greener minerals and green hydrogen as future endeavours. Following successive pronouncements by South African Mineral and Petroleum Resources Minister Gwede Mantashe on the need to leverage the country's critical minerals, the ministry recently published its national Critical Minerals and Metals Strategy. Mantashe has been vocal in criticising developed countries for defining 'critical minerals' to serve their own interests, and in February this year, threatened to withhold access to these minerals from the US if it limited funding. At the time, he called on African countries to embrace their strategic mineral advantage and take charge of growing demand. The South African critical minerals strategy seeks to do just that, by charting a roadmap that leverages these resources to the nation's benefit, while simultaneously driving growth, job creation and industrial development. Its stated intention is to focus on the entire value chain, with a view to growing the country's existing industrial base while improving value addition. The draft is sensitive to geopolitical tensions and trade restrictions and positions itself in that context, identifying the need to anchor the country as a supplier of critical minerals globally in the context of growing demand for certain minerals. Similar to many African countries, South Africa's value chains are primarily upstream, with a focus on extraction and export and little beneficiation and value addition. Like its neighbours, for example, Zimbabwe and Namibia, the country wants to take steps to localise beneficiation and processing. Carbon-intensive processing However, the strategy is less focused on leveraging minerals for the low-carbon transition and related green technologies, unlike the recently finalised African Union Green Mineral Strategy. Instead, it continues to prop up existing carbon-intensive processing and manufacturing activities, while giving a nod to the need to pursue greener minerals and green hydrogen as future endeavours. Noting the difference between a 'green mineral' and 'critical mineral' strategy, the one published by the ministry is very much the latter. This follows a unilateral view of what counts as a 'critical mineral', which Mantashe has previously stressed should be something that a country decides for itself. In the words of the strategy, critical minerals are those which are 'critical for South Africa'. This is seen to include 'minerals that are strategically important for economic growth, industrial development, job creation and national security', measured through economic potential, supply risks and risk of supply disruptions. In the strategy, this translates into a list of 21 minerals and metals (some of which are not strictly speaking either), which fall on a continuum of 'highly' critical to 'moderately' critical to the country. Sitting in the highly critical list are coal and iron ore, both extremely carbon-intensive input materials, grouped with minerals and metals well known for their green transition value, such as chrome and platinum. Lower on the list are gold, copper and aluminium, coupled with rare earth metals, cobalt, and uranium. This classification clearly illustrates that although there are differing interpretations of what a 'critical mineral' is, the South African approach is by no means linked to forward-looking technologies or a low-carbon transition. Coal Instead, it presents as a lengthy shopping list of measures across a broad spectrum of mined resources to revive South Africa's existing minerals economy, including sectors that have fared poorly in recent times, such as gold. South Africa is not alone in designating coal a critical 'mineral'. US President Donald Trump earlier this year issued the 'Reinvigorating America's Beautiful Clean Coal Industry' executive order. This designation of coal is contrary to the forward-looking and globally driven critical minerals environment, which the strategy itself acknowledges is primarily driven by the renewable energy transition, geopolitical dynamics, technological advancements and international trade policies and standards. The latter would include the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) that penalises carbon-intensive goods and services. The strategy also seeks to position the country as a regional hub for critical minerals' processing and beneficiation, as well as battery manufacturing, and underscores the importance of working with other countries in the region. Regional coordination However, notwithstanding comments around the difficulties of nationalism and unilateral action, it does not meaningfully address how South Africa intends to work with its neighbouring partners to jointly benefit from their respective strategic advantages and what role these other countries might play. This is something the African Continental Free Trade Agreement (AfCTA) could play a role in facilitating and supplementing, as it provides for the progressive elimination of tariffs on mining-related goods and services between members. The strategy then pans to other sectors such as hydrogen and fuel cell manufacturing, revitalising the ferro-alloys sector through various incentives and stimulus measures, trade measures to support the local steel industry, a handful of measures to stimulate electric vehicle manufacturing, and steps to develop a downstream industry for titanium. The measures are detailed and considered and build on or echo previous initiatives that have sought to revitalise these aspects of the economy. For example, the focus on batteries and fuel cells to support new energy vehicles (e-mobility) in the Just Energy Transition Implementation Plan and Electric Vehicle White Paper. The basics To work, however, South Africa will first need to ensure it gets the basics right. Minerals and metals have little value if they can't get to the ports or national processing facilities; if there is no power to process or utilise them; or if the ports are non-functional or congested. This has been a challenge over the past decade that has brought the South African mining sector to its knees. The strategy acknowledges this, but offers little more than reiterating the need to deepen existing efforts (Operation Vulindlela) to support port, energy and rail infrastructure and to create special zones, support initiatives, infrastructure finance and energy conservation measures. The strategy is laudable for the many measures and interventions it seeks to introduce or build on to further grow the sector, but given the breadth of its scope, and the legacy challenges that beset the industry, it will need a comprehensive implementation plan with sufficient financial backing and political will to get it off the ground. This may be the hardest part of all. Similarly, if it is to overcome the nationalistic trade tendencies and geopolitical tensions to become the regional hub it promotes, it will need to develop a much clearer strategy with neighbouring countries so that each can profit from their relative advantages. DM Olivia Rumble is a consultant to Enzi Ijayo Africa Initiative and a director at Climate Legal. Leezola Zongwe is a researcher at Enzi Ijayo, specialising in critical minerals and energy policy.
New Indian Express
8 hours ago
- Business
- New Indian Express
BRICS to buttress Global South
Prime Minister Narendra Modi's recent five-nation diplomatic tour spanning Brazil, Ghana, Namibia, Trinidad and Tobago, and Argentina was a demonstration of India's strategic vision for the Global South. Centred around the BRICS summit in Brazil, these visits reinforced India's position as a pivotal voice among emerging economies in a rapidly-evolving multipolar world. It showcased India's intent to shape global governance by empowering the Global South, deepening regional cooperation and counterbalancing the hegemonic influences in multilateral platforms. India's efforts to amplify the voice of the Global South have gained momentum in recent years, culminating in the inclusion of the African Union into the G20 during India's presidency in 2023. This precedent is now mirrored in BRICS, which is undergoing significant expansion. With India's proactive involvement, countries such as Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the UAE have joined the bloc, now termed BRICS+. Several more nations from West Asia, Africa and Latin America have expressed interest, viewing BRICS as a credible platform to champion their interests. India's current standing can be better appreciated by revisiting the origins of BRICS in the early 2000s and the foundational RIC or Russia-India-China framework. At that time, the global order was markedly different. Russia was a member of the G8, China was seamlessly integrating into West-led institutions, and India-China relations were relatively cordial. The inclusion of Brazil and South Africa expanded the group into BRICS, bound by a shared vision for a new multipolar world. Over the past two decades, the BRICS economies have surged. In purchasing power parity terms, the bloc's collective economy now stands at $60 trillion, surpassing the G7's $45 trillion, driven largely by the dynamism of Asian and other Global South countries. However, BRICS is not without contradictions. Border tensions in 2013, 2017 and 2020 have significantly altered India-China relations. While the bloc continues to espouse unity, there are heavy undercurrents of mistrust and apprehension. India's actions reflect an acute awareness of these realities.
Middle East
9 hours ago
- Politics
- Middle East
OPEN// Diplomats: Sisi's presence at AU summit shows Egypt's support for regional unity
CAIRO, July 13 (MENA) – President Abdel Fattah El Sisi's participation in the African Union's mid-year coordination summit in Malabo reflects Egypt's continued support for African unity, development, and regional cooperation, diplomats said. In statements to MENA, they added that President Sisi's remarks at the summit reaffirmed Egypt's role in supporting development and stability across the continent, and its active engagement within African Union frameworks. Former assistant foreign minister Mona Omar said that Sisi's attendance showed that Africa remains at the heart of Egypt's foreign policy, despite ongoing regional crises. She noted that Sisi's presence among just 16 attending leaders was a strong signal of Egypt's commitment. She added that Sisi represented Egypt not only as president, but also as head of NEPAD, which Egypt will continue chairing until 2026, and the North Africa Regional Capability, which deals with serious security challenges in Libya, Sudan, and the Sahel. For his part, former assistant foreign minister Salah Halima stated that Egypt plays a big role in pushing African development through NEPAD, particularly in areas like regional trade, industrial growth, and cross-border infrastructure. He cited the Cairo–Cape Town road and the Victoria–Mediterranean link as priority projects. He called for more African support for the North Africa Regional Capability based in Cairo, which focuses on peace and crisis response. Meanwhile, former deputy foreign minister Ali El Hefny noted that the summit was especially important as the continent faces economic, security, and climate challenges. He added that Egypt is working with African states on four main fronts: counterterrorism and migration, political coordination and conflict resolution, economic development, and social cooperation in education, health, and climate action. Hefny affirmed that Egypt's leadership role in both development and regional security was evident throughout the summit, and that recent bilateral meetings with African leaders reflect Cairo's intent to expand cooperation and overcome barriers to growth across the continent. (MENA) H A T/R E E
Mada
13 hours ago
- Politics
- Mada
Trump says US ‘working on' resolving Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam dispute
After United States President Donald Trump said that the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) dispute is 'a big problem' that the US is 'working on' resolving, President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi expressed appreciation for what he described as Trump's keenness to reach a 'fair agreement' between Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia on the matter. 'If I am Egypt, I want to have water in the Nile,' Trump said during a press conference with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte on Monday, adding that the Nile is a 'very important source of income and life' for Egypt. In response, Sisi praised what he called Trump's 'recognition' of the river's vital importance for Egyptians in his statement on Tuesday. Egypt has voiced existential concerns over its water security in its decade-long dispute with Ethiopia, arguing that the dam imposes a fait accompli on downstream countries that will either compromise their access to water or force their hand in agreements about resource-sharing. The US stepped in as a mediator to three-way negotiations which were ultimately unresolved between the countries involved in 2019, later stepping back to an observing role in another stalled round of talks between the Nile states led by the African Union. During Monday's presser, Trump reiterated his previous claims that the GERD is funded by the US. 'I think the US funded the dam,' he said, adding, 'I do not know why they didn't solve the problem before they built the dam. But it is nice when the Nile River has water.' He also referred to 'keeping peace between Egypt and Ethiopia' in the GERD dispute in a post from June on social media, claiming that he will resolve the dispute along with a series of other international diplomatic impasses for which he deserves a Nobel Prize, and, similar to what he said on Monday, that the US financed the GERD project, though 'stupidly.' Trump noted Egypt's concerns at the time, saying that it 'substantially reduces the water flowing into the Nile River.' In response, the director general of GERD's Public Participation Coordination Office, Aregawi Berhe, denied Trump's claims and stressed that the project was built by the 'Ethiopian people.' Prime Minister Mostafa Madbuly announced in the weekly cabinet presser last week Ethiopia's intention to resume GERD negotiations, after a years-long lapse in the talks that collapsed in December 2023. Egypt asked Ethiopia to 'sign a document' that would turn the intention into a written commitment, he added. Egypt has repeatedly voiced its concerns over its access to vital water resources amid the dam's establishment in successive rounds of talks since 2013. The US mediated an earlier round of talks after Egypt called for international mediation toward a deal. Delegations from Ethiopia, Egypt and Sudan met three times in Washington DC in 2020. An Egyptian government source speaking to Mada Masr on condition of anonymity at the time said that there are three terms on which Egypt would not 'under any circumstances' compromise: an agreed minimum amount of water Ethiopia would have to release annually, legally-binding measures for mitigation and dispute resolution and a final document that does not imply any permanent concession from Egypt on its water rights. A consultant to the negotiations said that Ethiopia was also insisting on a water share — a term to which they said Egypt would never agree. Though America's role in any future talks is unclear, Trump's comments come months ahead of Addis Ababa's inauguration of the mega-dam project, scheduled for September. The country completed the fourth and final filling phase of the dam in 2023 in a move that Cairo said was 'unilateral' action that disregards the interests of downstream countries Sudan and Egypt.
Russia Today
14 hours ago
- Politics
- Russia Today
Trump's Africa pivot: Leverage, not generosity
On July 9, 2025, the White House hosted a high-profile gathering framed as a new beginning for US-Africa relations. Five presidents from West and Central Africa (Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mauritania, and Senegal) joined US President Donald Trump for what was described as a working lunch to discuss trade, investment, democracy, and development. On the surface, the meeting appeared to offer hope – a pivot away from charity-based aid and toward 'win-win' economic cooperation. But beneath the photo ops and carefully worded press releases lies an old script, imperialism rewritten for a new era, colonial logic in a business suit. The most immediate red flag was the selective nature of the invitation. These five leaders were chosen not because they represent the African continent or a regional consensus, but precisely because they don't. They were selected for their compliance, not their vision. Revolutionary governments such as those in Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, or Guinea were deliberately excluded. The African Union was sidelined. The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) was ignored. This wasn't diplomacy, it was a strategic maneuver to fracture African solidarity and reward obedience, while isolating defiant sovereigntist forces in the Sahel. Trump used the occasion to showcase his shift in policy from foreign aid to direct trade and private investment. This coincides with the dismantling of USAID and broader gutting of US foreign assistance programs. While Trump presents this as cutting waste and promoting self-reliance, the numbers tell a different story. Liberia alone stands to lose aid worth more than 2.5% of its gross national income. A recent Lancet study forecasts up to 14 million deaths globally by 2030 as a consequence of cascading aid cuts in health, nutrition, and infrastructure. The narrative of aid fatigue obscures a more violent reality: The imposition of austerity and the prioritization of corporate capital over human lives. The logic behind this pivot isn't benevolence; it's extraction. Trump openly praised Africa's 'very valuable land, great minerals, great oil deposits,' and announced US support for Gabon's Banio potash mine through the US Development Finance Corporation. This is not development. This is raw material dependency dressed in the language of opportunity. These so-called partnerships do not include technology transfers, sovereign control of value chains, or long-term industrial strategies. African nations remain trapped in structures where they export what they do not consume and import what they do not produce. It is the same colonial dynamic of wealth outflow, but with new branding. Meanwhile, the travel bans that may affect the very countries represented at the summit underscore the contradiction at the heart of US foreign policy. Even as Africa is courted for its resources, it is shut out from Western borders, stigmatized as a security risk, and surveilled as a threat. The embrace of African leaders is tactical, not principled. It is not solidarity, but subjugation. The language of democracy and governance, repeatedly invoked at the summit, was deployed as a smokescreen. No one questioned the democratic legitimacy of US-backed regimes, nor did anyone raise the violence of sanctions, the repression of dissent, or the consequences of economic strangulation. Democracy, here, is not a goal but a weapon, used to discipline, coerce, and justify intervention. The summit was silent on colonialism, on reparations, on stolen wealth, on looted artifacts, and on the structural violence that underdeveloped Africa for centuries. We must see this summit not as a new beginning, but as a continuation of a permanent economic war against Africa. From structural adjustment programs to exploitative trade agreements, from the CFA franc to the World Trade Organization, Africa has been systematically disempowered. The use of debt, sanctions, and aid conditionalities have turned economic tools into instruments of domination. The radical response should be to reject these colonial structures entirely. We must also recognize that the US is not a development partner, it is a global military empire. With over 29 bases in Africa under AFRICOM, US drone operations in Niger, and covert CIA programs across the Sahel, Washington operates not as a friend of Africa but as a garrisoning force. These military installations are not for peace, but for control. Trump's so-called economic shock therapy is nothing new. It is part of a larger strategy of controlled collapse: Destroy weak states, flood markets with foreign goods, privatize essential services, and turn public wealth into private profit. To replace aid with investment is not inherently bad, but when that investment comes from the same forces that destroyed public systems in the first place, it becomes a cruel joke. Africa should fund its own development through progressive taxation, state-owned enterprises, repatriation of looted wealth, and the creation of sovereign wealth funds built on nationalized resources. The people of Africa should look beyond them and build grassroots power: Pan-African assemblies, community councils, people's defense networks, and economic forums that reflect the will of the masses, not the preferences of Washington. And let us stop pretending that development can happen without justice. Africa is owed reparations, for slavery, for colonial plunder, for structural adjustment, for environmental destruction. Africa loses $777 billion annually in illicit financial flows. It pays more in debt servicing than it receives in aid. These are not accidents; they are systemic theft. We must demand reverse conditionality: No cooperation without restitution. No deals without asset return. No handshakes without apology. Culturally, too, Africa is under siege. The US and its allies export not just goods but ideologies, individualism, consumerism, depoliticized entrepreneurship, and liberal technocracy. These are not neutral. They are tools of erasure, designed to uproot revolutionary consciousness. We must fight back with radical education, liberation art, and African-centered philosophy. We need a renaissance of resistance rooted in history, language, memory, and vision. The ultimate goal is not a better version of the current system. It is a different system altogether. A people's economy built on public ownership, cooperative agriculture, food sovereignty, and democratic control of resources. A trade system not based on extractive exports but on intra-African barter, solidarity, and reciprocity. A union of African nations that looks south, to Latin America, to Asia, to other colonized peoples, for alliance, not northward for approval. We must consider organizing a continental debt strike, led by the African Union and rooted in the legitimacy of popular resistance. Africa must collectively refuse to pay illegitimate debts, and redirect those funds toward healthcare, housing, infrastructure, and education. The White House summit also sought to isolate Africa from its revolutionary allies. There was no mention of Venezuela, of Cuba, of Palestine, of Iran, of the BRICS alliance. These are not coincidental omissions. They are calculated. The US fears a multipolar world where Africa chooses its own friends. That is why we must build an Afro-Global South Alliance: A collective of liberation movements, radical governments, and grassroots struggles across continents committed to self-determination, anti-imperialism, and global justice. And finally, we must reclaim revolutionary memory. The names of Nkrumah, Sankara, Gaddafi, Cabral, and Nyerere are not museum pieces. They are maps. They are weapons. They are the blueprints for what must come next. The young generation must know what was done, what was dreamed, and what remains unfinished. Let us build a Pan-African Memorial Archive to preserve their legacies and to teach the next generation not how to negotiate with empires, but how to defy them. What happened on July 9 in Washington was not a new beginning. It was a recycling of the old. An imperial pageant masquerading as diplomacy. But Africa does not belong to summits. It belongs to its people. And the people are rising. From Ouagadougou to Bamako, from Khartoum to Kinshasa, the cry is the same: We are not your quarry. We are not your market. We are not your experiment. We are a continent in rebellion. And history, as always, is being written not by those who dine with empires, but by those who dare to resist them.
