Why does DRC want a Ukraine-like minerals deal with Trump, amid conflict?
The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is having 'daily exchanges' with the United States government with the aim of securing a minerals-for-security deal, Congolese officials have told the media.
The move comes amid escalating violence in the East African country. The rebel M23 armed group has seized territory in areas rich in gold and coltan, an important mineral used in the manufacturing of electronic gadgets.
At least 7,000 people have been killed since January, according to the DRC government. Thousands more have been displaced.
Although there are no details of an official proposal for a deal with the US, DRC legislators appear to be hoping that the US will deploy troops to help contain the conflict in exchange for rights to the minerals. Analysts, however, say it is unclear whether such an alliance would align with US President Donald Trump's 'America First' policy, and that Washington would be more likely to take a less hands-on approach under any deal.
'The most likely scenario of such an agreement would be the US's provision of military equipment to the DRC as opposed to any direct troop support,' Daniel van Dalen, senior analyst at South Africa-based security intelligence firm, Signal Risk, told Al Jazeera.
Here's what we know so far about the DRC's proposal:
Why is DRC seeking a minerals deal with the US now?
Observers say the DRC has been inspired by Washington's proposal to support Ukraine in its war against Russia in exchange for a minerals deal.
That proposal entails Kyiv handing over a 50 percent stake in the country's minerals revenue to enjoy a 'long-term financial commitment to the development of a stable and economically prosperous Ukraine' from the US.
According to the Reuters news agency, Andre Wameso, deputy chief of staff to DRC's President Felix Tshisekedi, went to Washington earlier this month to discuss a similar potential 'partnership' with US officials. DRC officials have not disclosed specific details on what such a deal would entail.
Like Ukraine, the DRC needs security partners to win its war against the M23 and more than 100 other armed groups that have control of lucrative mines throughout the country. The resource-rich country is a major producer of tin, tungsten, tantalum and gold. These minerals, known collectively as 3TG, are used in the production of electronics, defence equipment, electric vehicles and other technology. DRC's untapped natural resources are estimated to be worth some $24 trillion.
What has been proposed by Congolese legislators?
On February 21, the Africa Business Council, an international advocacy group for African business interests, wrote to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, inviting the US to invest in DRC's untapped resources. The group said it was acting on behalf of Congolese senator Pierre Kanda Kalambayi who chairs the DRC's senate committee on defence, security and border protection.
The group suggested access to such investment could be made in exchange for 'a long-term economic and security partnership that benefits both nations'.
In its proposal, the Africa Business Council proposed:
Access to DRC's mines for US defence and technology companies and access to a port for exports.
Control of a joint mineral stockpile of Congolese minerals to be shared by the two countries.
In exchange, the US would provide training and equipment for Congolese forces and direct access to the US military in DRC.
US officials last week signalled a readiness to consider such proposals, but did not respond directly.
'The United States is open to discussing partnerships in this sector that are aligned with the Trump Administration's America First Agenda,' a US State Department spokesperson told Reuters, noting that Congo held 'a significant share of the world's critical minerals required for advanced technologies'.
The spokesperson added that the US would want to boost private sector investment in the DRC 'in a responsible and transparent manner'.
What is the armed conflict in DRC about?
A protracted conflict has raged in the DRC for more than 30 years. The country's armed forces are weak as a result of government corruption, according to analysts. The country has endured two civil wars between 1996 and 2002, as well as the current rebellion of the M23, with many thousands killed. Millions of people have been displaced.
Defeating the M23 armed group is President Felix Tshisekedi's top priority. Although several peacekeeping forces are currently in the country, including a United Nations mission (MONUSCO), M23 has managed to seize at least two major towns – Goma and Bukavu – in a lightning advance. It is presently closing in on a third – Walikale, a major mining hub.
A dispute with neighbouring Rwanda adds a further dimension to the conflict. The UN and US have both separately accused Rwanda of backing the M23 and supplying it with troops. They also allege the M23 group is smuggling gold, coltan and other minerals out of the DRC.
Rwanda's President Paul Kagame denies any involvement with M23 but has in the past justified sending Rwandan soldiers to the DRC to protect Congolese Tutsis from alleged discrimination. That minority population fled Rwanda in 1994 in the wake of a genocide carried out by members of the Hutu majority.
Rwanda has also accused DRC of harbouring Hutu armed groups involved in the genocide. During the Congolese civil wars, UN reports concluded that both Rwanda and its ally, Uganda, had looted the DRC's mineral resources.
Analysts fear that scenario is playing out again, this time via the M23's control of lucrative mines in eastern DRC. The European Union, which signed a deal with Rwanda to supply 3TG minerals in February 2024, is now considering cancelling that contract. Rwanda currently supplies about 30 percent of the world's tantalum. The EU has similar agreements with the DRC.
Several European countries, and the US, have in recent weeks imposed sanctions on key Rwandan officials they say are linked to the current violence in eastern DRC, and have called on Kagame's government to withdraw troops.
How would the US benefit from a deal with DRC?
Analysts say Washington could benefit from direct access to DRC-government-owned minerals.
Former DRC President Joseph Kabila negotiated several minerals-for-infrastructure deals with China, although those have been criticised for not being transparent and for failing to deliver what was promised. Currently, Chinese companies dominate the investment landscape in DRC's minerals industry. Nine of the biggest cobalt mining regions are in the DRC's southern Katanga. Of the mines in those regions, half are run by Chinese operators.
Under President Tshisekedi, the DRC government appears ready to shift away from China and invite other players to own and operate mines. DRC has signed deals with the EU and India in the past two years. This week, DRC spokesperson Patrick Muyaya told Reuters the country was ready to 'diversify' and that the US, in particular, would be welcome.
'If today American investors are interested in coming to the DRC, obviously they will find space … DRC has reserves that are available and it would also be good if American capital could invest here,' he said.
However, analyst van Dalen said it is unlikely that the US would seek to own mines in the DRC, as Congolese politicians have proposed, because this would mean Washington would 'only be playing catch-up' with China.
'I don't foresee a scenario where any agreement materially alters the domestic security landscape in the near term or China's dominance in the sector,' he said.
A more likely scenario, he added, would see the US buying directly from the government, while its rival, China, continues to operate mines. That approach would also prevent any potential US-China 'face-offs' on the ground.
What will happen next?
The two countries were already fostering a growing relationship under former President Joe Biden's administration but it's unclear if or when the DRC and the US would sign any deals.
Although there are no US companies operating in the country, the US is investing in the Lobito Corridor, an infrastructure project which includes the building of railways and ports to export DRC's minerals through neighbouring Angola.
Under Trump, that relationship is set to become more transactional, analysts say, as the Ukraine negotiations have demonstrated.
However, experts also say it remains unclear how new US military equipment for the DRC would immediately change the course of the ongoing war, as the M23 continues its advance towards Kinshasa.
Such support would more likely bolster the DRC's efforts to reform its weak military in the medium to long term, experts say.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
A simple visual guide to Iran and its people
Iran has re-emerged at the centre of international attention, following Israeli attacks on the Middle East's second-largest country on June 13. Stretching from the Caspian Sea in the north to the Gulf of Oman in the south, Iran's landscape is as varied as its history, with key access to critical waterways, including the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of the world's oil flows. Iran's history spans millennia, making it one of the world's most ancient and culturally rich nations, continuously inhabited and influential throughout history. In this visual explainer, Al Jazeera provides a snapshot of Iran's geography, key cities, population makeup, and ethnic diversity. With a population of 92 million, Iran is the 17th-largest country in the world by population and land area. Iran's nominal gross domestic product (GDP) is $418bn, ranking it 36th in terms of the economy size. It has an unemployment rate of about 7.2 percent. The country's adult literacy rate is 89 percent, with youth literacy nearing 99 percent, though these rates vary between rural and urban areas. The country is rich in oil and gas, ranking as the world's ninth-largest oil producer and third-largest natural gas in Western Asia, Iran is the second-largest country in the Middle East after Saudi Arabia and the 17th-largest in the world, covering approximately 1.65 million square kilometres (636,000 square miles). Iran shares land borders with seven countries, the longest being Iraq, followed by Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Turkiye and Armenia. Iran covers about one-sixth the equivalent land area of the United States, nearly as large as the state of Alaska. It is about one-sixth the size of Europe, about one-fifth the size of Australia, roughly half the size of India and about 80 times larger than of Iran's 92 million people live in the western half of the country, where the terrain features rugged mountains alongside fertile valleys and river basins that sustain much of the population. With 9.6 million inhabitants, Tehran has been the capital since 1795 and is the country's largest city. Situated beneath the Alborz Mountains, Tehran's history dates back more than 6,000 years. Mashhad, in the northeast, is Iran's second-largest city with 3.4 million people and a history spanning more than 1,200 years. It is a major religious and cultural centre and is home to the Imam Reza Shrine, which brings in millions of pilgrims from around the world. Isfahan, the third-largest city, is home to some 2.3 million people. More than 2,500 years old, the city was once the capital of the Safavid Empire, which lasted from 1501 to 1722. Isfahan hosts major educational institutions and is a centre for textiles, steel and manufacturing, along with nuclear and aerospace industries. Other populous cities across Iran include: Shiraz (1.7 million), Tabriz (1.7 million), Karaj (1.6 million), Qom (1.4 million) and Ahvaz (1.3 million).Nearly 60 percent of Iran's population is below the age of 39, according to figures from the United Nations Statistics Division. The country's median age is 33-34 years, and about 77 percent of Iranians live in urban areas. The largest age groups in Iran are those aged 30-34 and 35-39, meaning most of the population was born after the 1979 Islamic Revolution that toppled the Pahlavi Shah regime. However, there has been a significant emigration of Iranian professionals in recent years, largely driven by economic is a highly diverse country, both ethnically and culturally. Persians make up approximately 61 percent of the population, while significant minority groups include Azerbaijanis (16 percent), Kurds (10 percent) and others, such as Lurs (6 percent), Arabs (2 percent), Baloch (2 percent) and Turkic groups (2 percent). Iran is predominantly Shia Muslim, making up about 90 percent of the population, while Sunni Muslims and other Muslim sects account for roughly 9 percent. The remaining 1 percent includes roughly 300,000 Baha'i, 300,000 Christians, 35,000 Zoroastrians, 20,000 Jews, and 10,000 Sabean Mandeans according to the Minority Rights Group. In border regions such as Kurdistan, Khuzestan and Sistan-Baluchestan, ethnic groups play a key role in shaping the country's ethnic and religious diversity as well as its regional politics. While Persian (Farsi) is the official national language, many regions across the country speak a variety of other languages.
Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Are Israel's attacks against Iran legal?
United States President Donald Trump is considering joining Israel in what it claims are its efforts to destroy Iran's nuclear programme, based on its stated belief that Iran is 'very close' to developing a nuclear weapon. Israel argues that it has carried out attacks on Iran's military and nuclear sites over the past week in anticipation of an Iranian nuclear attack. But is this a valid justification? The United Nations Charter, which is the founding document for states' rights since World War II, outlaws aggressive war, allowing military action only as self-defence. Only the UN Security Council is empowered to decide if military action is justified, once countries have tried and failed to resolve their differences peacefully. If a country is attacked while the UNSC deliberates, that country still has the 'inherent right of individual or collective self-defence', however. The question of the legality of Israel's strikes on Iran, therefore, revolves around whether Israel – and any allies coming to its aid – can justify its attacks on Iran as 'anticipatory' self-defence. Many experts say they are not. 'This is not a situation in which Israel is allegedly responding to an Iranian attack occurring now, whether directly or through proxies such as the Houthis,' wrote Marko Milanovic, a professor of public international law at Reading University who has served on the International Criminal Court (ICC), in the European Journal of International Law, which he edits. Israel cannot make the case that an attack is imminent, argued Milanovic. 'There is little evidence that Iran has irrevocably committed itself to attacking Israel with a nuclear weapon, once it develops this capability,' wrote Milanovic. 'And even if such an intention was assumed – again, it would be for Israel to provide any further evidence of such intention – I don't see how it could plausibly be argued that using force today was the only option available.' 'Even if the broadest possible [legally plausible] understanding of anticipatory self-defence was taken as correct, Israel's use of force against Iran would be illegal,' he concluded. The United Kingdom's chief legal counsel, Richard Hermer, advised Prime Minister Keir Starmer against getting involved in any attack on Iran, 'unless our personnel are targeted', according to Sky News. 'The possibility of acting in self-defence in view of an attack that might be coming is illegal in international law and we're all very, very clear about that,' agreed Maria Gavouneli, a professor of international law at Athens University. She said nuclear weapons have been discussed in international legal circles as a special case. 'There might be a chance for anticipatory self-defence, in other words, an exception to the rule, when we have clear evidence that there is a nuclear weapon being built,' Gavouneli told Al Jazeera. Israel might try to make the case that its 'continued existence was at stake and they had to act', she said. To make this case, Israel would need 'warranties, some kind of evidence offered by the International Atomic Energy Agency', the UN's nuclear IAEA has said that it cannot verify what Iran is doing. But it has not clearly suggested that Iran may be building a bomb. Iran stopped cooperating with the IAEA in February 2021 after Trump annulled a key agreement during his first term that obliged it to do so. That agreement – the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – had been negotiated by Trump's predecessor, Barack Obama, in 2015. On June 9, IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi said Iran's failures to comply with reporting obligations had 'led to a significant reduction in the agency's ability to verify whether Iran's nuclear programme is entirely peaceful'. He said Iran had 'repeatedly either not answered, or not provided technically credible answers to, the agency's questions' regarding the presence of man-made uranium particles at three locations – Varamin, Marivan and Turquzabad – and had 'sought to sanitise the locations'. Grossi also described Iran's 'rapid accumulation of highly-enriched uranium' as a 'serious concern'. He was referring to 60 percent pure uranium enrichment facilities at Fordow and Natanz, and the IAEA's discovery of 83.7 percent pure uranium particles at Fordow in 2023. Weapons-grade uranium is at least 90 percent pure. Under the JCPOA, Iran was to have uranium at no higher than 5 percent purity. On June 12, just before Israel launched its assault on Iran's military and nuclear sites, the IAEA approved a resolution declaring that Tehran was not complying with its commitment to international nuclear safeguards. However, this week, Grossi emphasised that the IAEA had found no evidence of Iranian nuclear weapons production. 'We did not have any proof of a systematic effort to move into a nuclear weapon,' he said. Iran has responded that it is a signatory of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), under which it has agreed not to develop or acquire nuclear weapons, and the discovery of highly enriched particles at its sites may be the result of sabotage or malicious acts. On Monday, Iran's Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that lawmakers were preparing a bill to withdraw Tehran from the NPT, in light of the Israeli attacks. In 1981, Israel attacked and destroyed Iraq's unfinished Osirak nuclear reactor, which was being built by French commercial interests, invoking anticipatory self-defence. But the UNSC Resolution 487 (PDF) strongly condemned the attack as a violation of the UN Charter and the 'inalienable and sovereign right of Iraq and all other States, especially the developing countries, to establish programmes of technological and nuclear development to develop their economy and industry for peaceful purposes'. It also noted that Israel is not a signatory to the NPT. Israel is currently believed to possess 90 nuclear bombs. Then-President George W Bush also invoked the argument of preemptive self-defence when justifying the 2003 US war against Iraq. He suggested Iraq might one day 'cooperate with terrorists' to deliver a weapon of mass destruction on US soil, even though UN weapons inspectors said there was no hard evidence Iraq was developing such a weapon. The UNSC refused to endorse Bush's war, but he went ahead anyway with a 'coalition of the willing'. Once in control of Iraq, foreign troops discovered no weapons of mass destruction. In 2018, Israel revealed it had bombed a Syrian reactor 11 years before, apparently only just before it became operational, believing it to be part of a plan of the then-government of Bashar al-Assad to acquire nuclear weapons. Under Operation Outside the Box, it destroyed the North Korean-built plutonium reactor in Deir Az Zor in September 2007. Israel's justification was, again, that it was anticipating a Syrian nuclear attack. Israel killed several top Iranian physicists working on Iran's nuclear programme on June 13. It is suspected of having been involved in several more assassinations of Iranian physicists and engineers since 2010. Milanovic said scientists who were enlisted in the armed forces of Iran could be considered fighters and targeted. However, he said, 'scientists who are civilians – and most probably are – cannot lawfully be made the object of an attack. Simply working on a weapons programme as a researcher does not entail direct participation in hostilities that could remove civilian immunity from an attack'. Both countries have been criticised for carrying out attacks on each other's hospitals. About 70 people were injured when Iranian missiles hit the Soroka Medical Center in Beersheba in southern Israel on Thursday. Israel accused Iran of a 'war crime', but Iran said the hospital was close to a military site, which was the real target. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi claimed the missile attack hit an Israeli military and intelligence centre located near Soroka hospital, causing only 'superficial damage to a small section' of the health facility. Meanwhile, Israel itself has damaged or destroyed the vast majority of hospitals and medical centres in the Gaza Strip since its war on the Palestinian territory began on October 7, 2023. In many cases, it has argued that Hamas was using those sites as cover for its operations. But it is not permitted to strike hospitals and medical facilities under international law. The International Committee of the Red Cross, referring to international humanitarian law, states: 'Under IHL, hospitals and other medical facilities – whether civilian or military – enjoy specific protection that goes beyond the general protection afforded to other civilian objects. This elevated protection ensures that they remain functional when they are needed most. These protections were put in place by the Geneva Conventions for the Protection of War Victims in 1949.' Israel also struck the Iranian state broadcaster IRIB, interrupting a live broadcast on Monday. TV anchor Sahar Emami denounced the 'aggression against the homeland' and the 'truth' as a blast went off and smoke and debris filled the screen. The footage then showed her fleeing the studio as a voice is heard calling, 'God is greatest'. Israel has also targeted and killed more than 200 journalists and media workers in Gaza since October 2023. In 2021, a building housing the offices of Al Jazeera and The Associated Press news agency in Gaza was destroyed in an Israeli strike. Media professionals do not have special protections under the Geneva Conventions, but they are protected under the same clauses that protect all civilians in armed conflict, according to the British Institute of Comparative and International Law.
Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Is it time for Europe to choose China over the US?
As Donald Trump barrels through his second term in the White House, Europe faces a question it has long avoided: Should it continue clinging to its alliance with the United States, or is it time to chart a new course – perhaps one that leads eastwards? In April, Chinese President Xi Jinping urged Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez to encourage the European Union to 'resist together' against Washington's 'unilateral coercion'. This coercion is not limited to trade; it extends to politics, culture and global strategy. For Europe, the question is not simply whether the US remains a powerful ally but whether it is still the right one. A closer relationship with China now offers distinct advantages – an idea likely to be discussed at the EU-China summit in July. While European attitudes towards China remain cautious, as demonstrated by recent tariffs targeting low-cost imports from platforms like Temu and Shein, Europe's strategic reflex still defaults to the US, especially in finance and defence. That reflex, born of history, is increasingly out of step with Europe's long-term interests. The US has long pursued a consistent global aim: to preserve its position as the world's sole superpower. But under President Trump, US global leadership has taken a darker turn. Basic democratic principles are being eroded. Human rights, academic freedom and social justice have come under sustained assault. From unconditional support for Israel's devastating assault on Gaza – widely condemned as a genocide – to greenlighting a newly launched war on Iran, mass deportations and the dismantling of university funding, Trump's United States is actively undermining the values it once claimed to champion. China, of course, has its own challenges. It lacks press freedom, censors dissent and tightly controls public discourse. But is the democratic West still so different? In an information landscape dominated by a handful of tech billionaires, platforms like X and Facebook amplify misinformation and conspiracy theories while marginalising serious public debate. The treatment of whistleblowers such as Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden further suggests that truth itself has become a threat to what now passes as American democracy rather than a foundation of it. Europe must also confront the economic and political model it shares with the US. Democracy, once a source of pride, increasingly functions as ideological cover for oligarchy – rule by and for the few. Trump embodies this shift, treating democratic norms as obstacles to unending accumulation. But he is not alone in this. Across the West, wealth is increasingly concentrated and politics increasingly unresponsive to the needs of most of its people. The contrast between Washington and Beijing in foreign affairs also warrants attention. China maintains one overseas military base, in Djibouti, and a handful of small support outposts. The US, by contrast, operates more than 750 military installations worldwide. That vast footprint may soon serve Trump's revived imperial imagination: He recently shared a video envisioning Gaza as the 'Riviera of the Middle East' after saying its Palestinian residents would be resettled elsewhere. China, meanwhile, opposed such forced displacement and reaffirmed the Palestinian right to resist foreign occupation. China is also becoming an increasingly attractive destination for education. With more than 3,000 universities serving over 40 million students, its system is both expansive and accessible. Tuition ranges from $1,500 to $3,000 a year, in stark contrast to the $40,000 charged by many US institutions. Universities like Tsinghua are gaining global recognition for high-impact research. And while these institutions operate under strict censorship, they remain a serious alternative – especially as US campuses now face student repression, visa crackdowns and mounting political interference. Why, then, does the EU remain tethered to an alliance that increasingly undermines its values and interests? The truth is that Europe is not yet politically sovereign. It lacks a unified economy, military, tax system and labour market. From north to south, east to west, the continent is fragmented – linguistically, culturally and politically. In a 2017 speech at the Sorbonne, French President Emmanuel Macron spoke of 'European sovereignty'. But that is precisely what Europe still lacks: the ability to evaluate its interests independently and form alliances accordingly. Until that sovereignty becomes reality, any talk of shifting alliances – however urgent – remains largely theoretical. China is prepared for a new era of cooperation. Europe, paralysed by internal division and outdated loyalties, is not. Yet Trump's United States is doing everything it can to make the eventual choice for Europe clearer by the day. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
