Latest news with #peace deal
Zawya
10 hours 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. (
New York Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- New York Times
Hegseth Attends Meeting on Ukraine After Skipping Last Session
Days after President Trump shifted his tone on Ukraine, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth participated in a meeting on Monday of the roughly 50 nations supporting the embattled country. The meeting was held virtually and led by the defense ministers of Britain and Germany. The collection of countries, which is known as the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, was founded during the Biden administration by Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III. But Mr. Hegseth has largely taken a hands-off approach, ceding leadership of it to Britain shortly after Mr. Trump took office in January. When the contact group met in person at NATO headquarters in April, Mr. Hegseth opted to call in. He did not participate in the next meeting, which was in June. Mr. Trump initially expressed deep skepticism of giving U.S. military support to Ukraine, which Russian forces invaded in 2022. But last week, he said the United States would help Europe send more weapons to Ukraine and warned Russia that if it did not reach a peace deal within 50 days, he would impose a new round of punishing sanctions. A spokesman for the Pentagon declined to comment on Monday regarding Mr. Hegseth's role in Monday's meeting. The Defense Department said in a statement that it would not comment on internal discussions between the administration and partner nations. A senior American official, speaking on the condition of anonymity before the meeting to discuss internal planning, said the United States expected 'several countries' to commit to purchasing additional 'capabilities' — weapons, munitions and equipment — to donate to Ukraine. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Fox News
2 days ago
- Business
- Fox News
UK backs Trump's Putin ultimatum with urgent '50-day drive' to strengthen Ukraine's position
In a direct response to President Donald Trump's 50-day deadline that he issued to Russian President Vladimir Putin in his latest peace deal push, the U.K. on Monday announced a "50-day drive" to better arm Ukraine. The call to action was issued by U.K. Defense Secretary John Healey during a virtual meeting with the Ukraine Defense Contact Group (UDCG) on Monday, the British Ministry of Defense announced. The Defense Ministry did not immediately answer Fox News' Digital's questions about what type of commitments Healey wants to see from allied nations in support of Kyiv. At the top of the meeting, the British defense secretary said "[Trump] started the clock on a 50-day deadline for Putin to agree to peace or to face crippling economic sanctions. "And as members of this UDCG, we need to step up in turn with a 50-day drive to arm Ukraine on the battlefield and to help push Putin to the negotiating table," he added. Healey urged nations to utilize the NATO sales agreement announced by Trump and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte last week to more quickly and efficiently arm Ukraine on the battlefield. While the U.S.-NATO sales agreement is not an unusual deal as Washington, D.C., for decades has sold its arms to NATO allies, the announcement was significant because it signaled a turning point in the U.S.'s continued support for Ukraine, which has remained a question since Trump was re-elected in November. "We sell arms to allies all the time and if they want to give them to Ukraine then we authorize an export license, and they then transfer the arms to Ukraine," Mike Ryan, who formally served as deputy assistant secretary of Defense for European and NATO Policy, told Fox News Digital. "So, the significance is that one, the Europeans are stepping up their support for Ukraine. Two, the American taxpayer is getting a break. Three, Europe is buying more American arms [which is] good for the trade deficit, and four, Ukraine is getting the help it needs." The Monday meeting will be the fourth time Healey has chaired the defensive group in support of Kyiv, and the third such event that he has done so alongside German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius. A major point of discussion is expected to be the quick transfer of Patriot Battery Missiles for Ukraine – five of which Berlin is set to confirm shipment of on Monday following his meeting with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth last week. "Boris and I have agreed to partner in providing critical air defense missiles to Ukraine," Healey said before announcing a near $54 million defensive pledge to Ukraine, and by extension, Europe's security. The announcement is on top of the more than $6 billion in military aid the U.K. has sent Ukraine this year alone. "This is a critical moment we meet at a critical time, a time for all allies and partners to share the burden, to support Ukraine, both in the fight now and to secure the peace future," Healey added.
France 24
2 days ago
- Politics
- France 24
UK calls for 50-day drive to arm Ukraine
Earlier this month, Trump gave Russian President Vladimir Putin 50 days to strike a peace deal with Kyiv in the three-year war or face sanctions. UK Defence Secretary John Healey told a meeting of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group (UDCG) that Kyiv's backers stand at a moment of "maximum opportunity". "As members of this UDCG, we need to step up, in turn, a 50-day drive to arm Ukraine on the battlefield and to help push Putin to the negotiating table," Healey told the virtual meeting of 52 nations. Trump also pledged to supply Kyiv with new military aid, sponsored by NATO allies, as its cities suffer ever-increasing Russian aerial attacks since Moscow's 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Healey, chairing the meeting alongside German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius, said the UK "backs this policy". "We will play our full part in its success," he added. Russia has escalated long-range aerial attacks on Ukrainian cities as well as frontline assaults and shelling over recent months, defying Trump's warning. Healey said Britain and Germany have "agreed to partner in providing critical air defence missiles to Ukraine". Pistorius said the two countries would provide 220,000 rounds of 35 millimetre ammunition for anti-aircraft guns used by Ukraine. According to the UK defence ministry, Britain has sent £150 million ($200 million) worth of air defence missiles and artillery rounds to Ukraine in the past two months. The UK has pledged to spend £700 million on air defence and artillery ammunition for Ukraine this year. The commitment is in addition to other funding to provide more of the drones that have become key weapons in the war with Russia. Some 50,000 drones have been delivered to Ukraine in the last six months, with another 20,000 coming from a coalition of nations led by Britain and Latvia. © 2025 AFP
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Turkey's president says his support for a two-state deal on ethnically split Cyprus is absolute
Cyprus Anniversary Invasion NICOSIA, Cyprus (AP) — Turkish Cypriots on Sunday celebrated Turkey's military invasion of Cyprus that cleaved the island nation along ethnic lines 51 years ago. Turkey's president reaffirmed his full backing for a controversial peace deal that envisions the establishment of two separate states. It's a proposal that the majority Greek Cypriots in the island's internationally recognized southern part reject out of hand. It would formalize Cyprus' partition and give Turkey a permanent foothold they see as a bid for control of the entire, strategically situated country and its offshore hydrocarbon wealth. 'Our support for (Turkish Cypriot leader Ersin Tatar's) vision for a two-state solution is absolute,' Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said in remarks to a crowd during celebrations that culminated with a military parade. It was scheduled this year for the evening to avoid the worst of the scorching mid-summer's heat. 'It is time for the international community to come to terms with the facts on the ground,' Erdogan added, urging the international community to establish diplomatic and economic relations with the breakaway state in Cyprus' northern third that Turkish Cypriots declared in 1983. Turkey's invasion came in the immediate aftermath of a coup staged by Athens junta-backed supporters of uniting Cyprus with Greece. Currently, only Turkey recognizes the Turkish Cypriot declaration of independence and maintains 35,000 troops in the north. Erdogan's renewed support for a two-state deal came just days after Tatar, the island's Greek Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides, the foreign ministers of 'guarantor' powers Greece and Turkey, and Britain's minister of state for Europe gathered at U.N. headquarters in New York for meetings with U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to end an eight-year moratorium on formal peace negotiations. The meeting achieved little in the way of a return to fully fledged negotiations as Tatar insisted on recognition for the breakaway Turkish Cypriot state as a prerequisite. The meeting did, however, achieve some progress on a number of confidence-building measures such the exchange of cultural artifacts and the setting up of an advisory committee on civil society. Guterres said he'll meet again with Tatar and Christodoulides in September and hold another wider meeting after a Turkish Cypriot leadership election in October in which Tatar is running on a two-state platform. Turkey and the Turkish Cypriots insist a two-state deal is the only way forward because decades of U.N.-mediated peace talks based on a U.N. Security Council endorsed framework of reunifying Cyprus as a federation no longer had any meaning. That switch came after the last big push for a peace accord in the summer of 2017. It fell through on what Greek Cypriots said was a Turkish and Turkish Cypriot insistence on keeping a permanent Turkish troop presence on the island and enshrining military intervention rights for Turkey as part of any deal. Greek Cypriots also rejected a demand for blanket veto powers for the minority Turkish Cypriots on all government decisions. In the south where Greek Cypriots commemorated the invasion with solemn memorials to the war dead, Christodoulides said the international community gives no support to a two-state deal. He said Turkey's continuing 'occupation of European territory' subverts its ambitions for closer European Union ties and undermines the role it wishes to play in the region. Solve the daily Crossword
