DRC arms for minerals deal amid Trump transactionalism, tariffs

Media reports suggest that a deal involving Donald Trump's US and the DRC could be modelled along the lines of the US- Ukraine deal, a transactional bilateral arrangement upon which the US would provide security support in exchange for critical minerals and rare earth metals.
Media reports that the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) has sought to negotiate an arms-for-minerals deal with the US at a time when Washington has imposed unilateral tariffs targeting both allies and opponents.
Media reports suggest that the US-DRC deal could be modelled along the lines of the US- Ukraine deal, a transactional bilateral arrangement upon which the US would provide security support in exchange for critical minerals and rare earth metals.
While the DRC faces a desperate security situation and has alluded to the need to diversify its partners, the Trump administration looks keen to take its transactional model of bilateral, and indeed multilateral, relations to conflict states, trading mineral resources for security needs.
The motivation and timing of the DRC's overtures towards the US may throw the country into a catch-22. The Trump administration has been very clear about seeking maximum benefits for the US in line with the Trump Administration's America First Agenda by forging transactional relations with partners. At the same time, the DRC is pulling a huge gamble which could alienate its traditional trusted partners.
At this juncture, African countries should seek collective solutions to emerging challenges, including in dealing with the chaotic, unpredictable, and transactional policies emerging from Washington.
The DRC faces ongoing violence, instability, massive displacement of its citizens and a huge humanitarian crisis. Millions of its citizens have been forced to flee their homes to escape the advancing M23 rebels, allegedly supported by Rwanda.
The rebel groups have responded with mixed signals to calls for a ceasefire by both the government of the DRC and Rwanda, while the SADC forces deployed to keep peace in the country are being withdrawn, leaving the Tshisekedi-led government desperate to bolster peace and stability in the country.
China has emerged as the major investment and development partner in Africa and the DRC in particular. The Trump Administration has indicated its desire to continue pushing US interests for critical minerals, drawing big power competition and rivalry into the region. The U.S., through its International Development Finance Corporation, set up during Trump's first term in 2019, has pledged a $550 million loan to support the Lobito corridor project.
The DRC, Angola, Zambia, and Tanzania are all participating in the Lobito corridor initiative, a $4 billion project which was originally launched by the Biden administration to develop railway infrastructure linking ports in Tanzania through the DRC and Zambia to Angola.
The project, which seeks to facilitate the transportation of minerals resources and other raw materials found in abundance in this region, was touted as evidence to affirm that the US and EU are seriously back to invest in Africa, and possibly outcompete flourishing Chinese investments.
According to the BBC, the U.S. chargé d'affaires and acting ambassador to Angola, James Story, told reporters that the United States is ''set to show our commitment to these projects,'' suggesting that the Trump administration is all in the planned partnership with the 4 Africancountries, the private sector, the US, and the EU countries.
Western governments view the Lobito corridor project as their answers and alternative to massive Chinese infrastructure projects in the region backed by a combination of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the Forum for China Africa Cooperation (FOCAC).
In contrast to ad hoc, recently emerging Western infrastructure initiatives in Africa, China has institutionalised its investments in the continent through combined public and private sector investments to assert itself in diversified supply and value chains, creating millions of jobs across the continent.
Western countries and the private sector have previously been reluctant to invest massively in the continent. They have mostly directed their focus on humanitarian and security initiatives partly because Africa is generally viewed as unstable and characterised by poor governance.
Compared to extensive Chinese investment in the DRC, and despite dangling billions of dollars in potential investment, US-DRC trade accounts for minuscule economic exchanges between the two countries. A summary of trade relations between the DRC and the US from the Office of the United States Trade Representative indicates that total goods trade with the Democratic Republic of the Congo reached $576.4 million in 2024.
The US goods exports to the Democratic Republic of the Congo were $253.3 million in 2024, growing by 35.6 percent to reach $66.5 million from 2023, while the US goods imports from the Democratic Republic of the Congo clocked $323.1 million, gaining by 17.5 percent to $48.1 million. Since the 2000s, China has invested more than $155 billion in Sub-Saharan Africa, making Beijing a legitimate alternative to Western financing in the realm of developmental and commercial infrastructure.
The DRC, which produces 80 percent of the world's cobalt, has attracted massive investments from state-owned enterprises and policy banks from China.
Chinese companies have invested in half of the largest cobalt mines in the DRC, with a significant stake in the refining of cobalt and other minerals.
China is by far the DRC's largest single trading partner, representing nearly half of its merchandise exports and more than a quarter of its imports, according to 2022 data from the World Trade Organization.
When it comes to China's economic ties with DR Congo, the UN Comtrade Database shows that for years, China has been DR Congo's top trading partner since the 2000s. According to the United Nations COMTRADE database on international trade, Chinese exports to Congo reached US$4.49 billion in 2023.
China has financed and built large-scale infrastructure projects in DR Congo, including hydropower plants and a dry port. The Chinese Loans to Africa Database run by Boston University says that Beijing extended $3.2bn (£2.5bn) of loans to the DRC between 2005 and 2022, mostly to fund road and bridge construction and the country's electricity grid. US investments in Africa in general, and the DRC in particular, are marginal.
The Trump administration is equally proving transactional, basically self-interested in a very inside-looking way. The unilateral imposition of blanket tariffs on nearly 60 countries, which have been suspended for 60 days, requires the DRC to demonstrate a measure of solidarity, goodwill and, most importantly, seek a collective response with other African countries to maintain a diplomatically nuanced collective posture towards the US. China, the main economic partner with the DRC, is confronted with a cycle of additional US tariffs.
In the context of the transactional operational mode characterising contemporary Washington foreign relations, and the tensions between Washington and Beijing triggered by Trumpsunilateral imposition of tariffs on China, the DRC, as with other African countries who aremembers of the BRICS, and have forged strong bilateral and multilateral relations with Beijing risk coercive backlash from Washington.
While China is clear on its policy of non-intervention and non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries, Trump has threatened to impose debilitating tariffs on members of the BRICS group of countries. South Africa is facing intense pressure for some of its policies to address its domestic historical contradictions.
Barring some serious delicate balancing act, the DRC risks alienating some of its traditional partners who have ploughed billions of dollars into the fragile state at a time when the US is proving unpredictable and unreliable, tearing the global economic and political rule book even for its historical partners.
Gideon H Chitanga, PhD is a Post Doctoral Researcher at the Centre for China Africa Studies (CACS), University of Johannesburg.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Mail & Guardian

an hour ago

• Mail & Guardian

International Atomic Energy Agency resolution was weaponised against Iran

Iranian missiles hit Jerusalem earlier this week. (X) The perversion of multilateral institutions using seemingly benign resolutions as quasi-declarations continues. Consequently, the multilateral system is slowly collapsing. The election of Donald Trump as United States president has further complicated the situation. Trump has pulled the US out of a number of multilateral agreements, including the Paris Accord on climate change. The International Criminal Court (ICC) is accused of selective justice when it comes to the prosecution of those charged with crimes against humanity — of only targeting African leaders and ignoring Western leaders who are accused of similar crimes. The ICC ignored calls to charge former British prime minister Tony Blair and former US president George Bush for crimes against humanity when they falsely asserted that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) resolution that Iran was in breach of its proliferation obligations for the first time in 20 years was a precursor to Israel's attack on Iran. The resolution was adopted by the IAEA's board of governors on 10 June; three days later Israel attacked Iran. The resolution was passed by 19 votes in favour, three against and 11 abstentions. The timing of the report and the speed with which Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, acted on it has raised questions. When did he know about the resolution? How did he manage to prepare Israel's attacks on Iran in such a short space of time? Was he given prior knowledge about the content of the resolution? Netanyahu, who has always scorned talks with Iran, took advantage of the resolution and the changes in the Middle East since the start of the war in Gaza in October 2023. Israel has always claimed that Iran poses an existential threat to it. This follows a statement made by Iran's former president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in 2012 at the United Nations. Ahmadinejad said Israel has no roots in the Middle East and would be 'eliminated'. He was criticised for uttering an inflammatory statement and ignoring a UN's warning to avoid incendiary rhetoric ahead of the annual General Assembly session. Netanyahu has been beating the war drum against Iran ever since, arguing that 'Iran has to be stopped on its tracks before it is too late'. There are 191 countries that are parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), making it one of the most widely adhered-to arms control agreements. But four nuclear weapons states — India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea — are not signatories to the treaty. The treaty's objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to achieve nuclear disarmament. The IAEA, an agency of the UN, is responsible for monitoring nuclear activities and obligations of countries party to the treaty. South Africa has a nuclear power station generating 5% of the country's electricity. The country ratified the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in February 2019 and was the first country to have disarmed its nuclear weapons. Fearing that these could end up in the wrong hands, South Africa ended its nuclear weapons programme, which began during the 1970s, in 1989. The decision was executed just months before negotiations on ending apartheid between the National Party (NP) and the ANC started. It was an important decision which facilitated a smooth political transition in South Africa. Otherwise, global powers could have delayed or derailed the political transition. According to Ali Mazrui, a Kenyan intellectual, the NP was under pressure from various quarters to prevent what he referred to as the 'Black Bomb' from being transferred to an unknown black political leadership. (Graphic: John McCann/M&G) Back to the Middle East. Who is presenting an existential threat to other nations in the Middle East? Who possesses nuclear weapons in the region? There is a wide belief that Israel has nuclear weapons. The estimates are that it has nuclear stockpiles of between 90 and 400 nuclear warheads. According to political analyst Msano Zive, it is Israel that poses an existential threat in the region. The manner in which Israel has continued with the genocide in Gaza, its willingness to starve and suffocate civilians in Gaza and its disproportionate response to the attacks on 7 October 2023 has never been experienced in modern times. Israel is intent on committing the same atrocities in Iran. The destruction of property in Gaza and the number of deaths, including those still lying under the rubble, resemble a country that was struck by an atomic bomb, Zive argues. Israel has not ratified the non-proliferation treaty, meaning that the IAEA's monitors have no access to its nuclear programme. The world should be concerned. Israel has continually violated national sovereignty and security of its neighbours. Other than continuing to commit genocide in Gaza, it is relentlessly bombing Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and now Iran. Netanyahu's political survival and avoiding jail time is dependent largely on the continuation of the war in the region. Israel's failure to destroy Hamas in Gaza has led to Netanyahu to search for new targets. Iran has been the low-hanging fruit for a long time, given the national sentiments on Iran in Israel. The IAEA has to ensure a nuclear weapon-free and responsible world. Importantly, it also has to ensure that those who possess nuclear weapons and run nuclear related programmes act responsibly and adhere to the basic rules and regulations of the treaty. Importantly, the role of the IAEA of encouraging a nuclear weapons-free world has to be promoted. It is important therefore how the IAEA deals with Iran; it has to be seen to be fair. Iran ratified the non-proliferation treaty voluntarily. Why is it then harassed by a country known to possess nuclear weapons that refuses to ratify the treaty and scrutiny by the IAEA? The continuation of these double standards is likely to encourage other countries in the world who intend to produce nuclear weapons from being open about their plans. Thembisa Fakude is a senior research fellow at Africa Asia Dialogues and a director at the Mail & Guardian.

Eyewitness News

4 hours ago

• Eyewitness News

Supreme Court allows US victim suits against Palestinian authorities

WASHINGTON, UNITED STATES - The US Supreme Court cleared the way on Friday for American victims of attacks in Israel and the occupied West Bank to sue Palestinian authorities for damages in US courts. The court issued a unanimous 9-0 decision in a long-running case involving the jurisdiction of US federal courts to hear lawsuits against the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Americans killed or injured in attacks in Israel or the West Bank or their relatives have filed a number of suits seeking damages. In one 2015 case, a jury awarded $655 million in damages and interest to US victims of attacks which took place in the early 2000s. Appeals courts had dismissed the suits on jurisdiction grounds. Congress passed a law in 2019 -- the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA) -- that would make the PLO and PA subject to US jurisdiction if they were found to have made payments to the relatives of persons who killed or injured Americans. Two lower courts ruled that the 2019 law was a violation of the due process rights of the Palestinian authorities under the US Constitution but the Supreme Court ruled on Friday to uphold it. "The PSJVTA reasonably ties the assertion of federal jurisdiction over the PLO and PA to conduct that involves the United States and implicates sensitive foreign policy matters within the prerogative of the political branches," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. The PA announced in February that it would end its system of payments to the families of those killed by Israel or held in Israeli prisons, responding to a long-standing request from Washington. In 2018, during his first term as US president, Donald Trump signed into law rules suspending financial assistance to the PA as long as it continued to pay benefits to Palestinians linked to "terrorist" entities, according to the criteria of the Israeli authorities.

IOL News

5 hours ago

• IOL News

Why Pride Month is a protest for LGBTQ+ rights

Sandton Gay Pride went ahead as planned despite a terror warning by the US embassy in this file photo. South Africa is not only one of the only pro-queer African nations to date, but it is also the only country to have legalised same-sex marriage, and only the fifth in the world to have done so. Image: Timothy Bernard/African News Agency (ANA) IN South Africa, June is not only Youth Month, it is also the international Pride Month. This is a commemorative month-long observance dedicated to the celebration of LGBTQ+ pride, celebrating the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer people in local and international cultures and communities. South Africa is not only one of the only pro-queer African nations to date, but it is also the only country to have legalised same-sex marriage, and only the fifth in the world to have done so. Although, contemporary, other African nations have decriminalised same-sex relationships, South Africa is the only nation to fully legalise and enshrine the protections of queer people under our Constitutional laws. Legal progress for South Africa's LGBTQ+ community has not translated into lived safety: violence against gay and queer individuals remains rampant. The names Siphamandla Khoza, Andile 'Lulu' Nthuthela, Nathaniel 'Spokgoane' Mbele, Lonwabo 'Jack', and many others, echo loudly in discourses around South Africa's homophobia and violences against queer communities. Mere months ago, fearless advocate for queer Muslims and the world's first openly gay imam, Muhsin Hendricks, was murdered in a targeted attack near Gqeberha on February 15th. The 57-year-old cleric ran a mosque in Cape Town intended as a haven for gay and other marginalised Muslims. The car he was travelling in was ambushed as he made his way to officiate an interfaith marriage — an act symbolic of his mission to build bridges in the face of hate. Mere months before that, the remains of Lazarus Ikaneng Thomas, a 50-year-old gay man from Galeshewe in Northern Cape, were found after he was mutilated in a targeted homophobic attack. It was reported that Thomas had been strangled and had acid poured all over his body. Thomas's death was not just a horrifying murder — it was a savage and deliberate act of hatred. It reflects the cruel, barbaric violence still directed at queer bodies in a country that claims to uphold human rights. South Africa is internationally revered for having the best Constitution in the world. It is oftentimes praised for its progressive legal framework: same-sex marriage is legal, discrimination based on sexual orientation is constitutionally prohibited, and LGBTIQ+ people are, on paper, fully protected citizens. Still, queer lives are targeted, violated, and taken — often without consequence. Violence against queer people persists not just because of hate, but because our systems allow it to happen without punishment, letting perpetrators walk free under the cover of institutional neglect. Pride Month is a time meant to honour resilience and demand justice for all, despite gender and sexual orientation. The brutal murders of Hendricks, Thomas, and so many other vulnerable victims' murders serve as a searing reminder of the gap between legal recognition and lived experience. Laws may exist, but they have little weight when queer people are afraid to walk home, afraid to love openly, or to simply exist in peace. The violence in our society is not random; it is enabled by societal apathy, cultural prejudice, and the failure of institutions that are meant to protect our people. Queer people in our society still face oppressions and unspeakable violences, to the point of being dangerously normalised. According to the Mamba Online, 622 queer people were murdered in the span of just three months. From hate crimes and violences such as corrective rape, to various forms of institutional biases, queer people grapple with challenges such as unemployment, gender pay parities, exclusion in leadership, and more, purely because of their sexual orientation. This, being imposed in a constitutional democratic society, is an absolute travesty. This Pride Month, South Africa must look inward. The problem is not a lack of solid legislation, it is the deep-rooted stigma that festers in families, in religious communities, in townships, in schools, and in our justice system. Police still mock victims of queerphobic violence, and even refuse to acknowledge them. The SAPS has, in the past, been severely criticised for its harsh, dismissive attitude towards homophobic crimes. Courts drag their feet, sidelining homophobic violence and atrocities for more sensational — often political — cases. In addition to this, only 28.6% of Home Affairs branches had marriage officers who were willing to marry same sex couples. This is deplorable and shows that our government institutions don't take constitutional rights seriously. Politicians pay lip service to inclusion while staying silent when queer people are brutally murdered. Pride cannot be reduced to rainbow logos and corporate hashtags; it must be a genuine call to action. The era of empty promises is long gone. Legal protections mean nothing without moral conviction. Equality can't be legislated into existence alone. Our nation must reckon with the values it claims to uphold and confront the prejudices it still tolerates in its homes, churches, schools, streets, and beyond. What is required now is transformation at the level of mindset, culture, and conscience. Until queer lives are valued not just in law books but in everyday interactions, in homes, and in the hearts of our fellow citizens, our democracy remains incomplete. Pride means nothing if it leaves the most vulnerable among us behind. South Africa's youth — particularly during Youth Month — are uniquely positioned to be the driving force behind real change. Unburdened by some of the rigid prejudices of older generations, many young people are boldly challenging homophobia, transphobia, and the silence that surrounds queer issues in their communities. From student-led movements, to social media activism, the youth are demanding that queer rights be treated not as optional, but as essential to a just and inclusive society. They are reshaping cultural norms, holding institutions accountable, and creating spaces where queer identities are affirmed rather than erased. In a country where legal protections already exist, it is this generational shift, powered by the courage, creativity, and a refusal to settle for performative partnerships, that can transform SA from just a nation of progressive laws into a truly liberated society. This was the very essence of the national liberation movement: freedom and the entrenchment of equal human rights across our entire society. It is Section 9 of our Bill of Rights that explicitly stipulates the right to sexual orientation and prohibits discrimination in its entirety. South Africa is the First Nation ever to enshrine these protections in the Constitution. South Africa's youth have always been at the forefront of change — from the June 16 Soweto Uprising to #FeesMustFall. Today, they continue to breathe life into our constitutional promises. Young people have an undeniable, unyielding sense of justice, and their commitment to queer rights is critical to the advancement of Pride in our post-democratic society. The youth are not only defending human rights in our society, but expanding the meaning of freedom for future generations. They are holding institutions accountable and demanding that the values enshrined in the Constitution become lived realities for all, including queer communities. In South Africa, everyone in our society knows the fight for freedom, human rights and true liberation — past and present. True Pride means more than survival. If Pride is to mean anything in South Africa, it must move all of us, from law to culture, from silence to solidarity. This means dignity, safety, and freedom for all queer people. We owe it to Hendricks, Thomas, and to the innumerable lives taken by rampant, inhumane queerphobia, to demand nothing less than true justice. It is evident that: 'To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment.' Until South Africa confronts the hatred that lives beyond its laws, Pride will remain a protest, not a celebration. * Tswelopele Makoe is a gender and social justice activist and editor at Global South Media Network. She is a researcher, columnist, and an Andrew W Mellon scholar at the Desmond Tutu Centre for Religion and Social Justice, UWC. The views expressed are her own. ** The views expressed here do not reflect those of the Sunday Independent, IOL, or Independent Media. Get the real story on the go: Follow the Sunday Independent on WhatsApp.