The US-Brokered Peace Deal and the DRC’s Mineral Resources
A recent peace deal brokered by the United States between the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda has raised concerns about the implications for the region’s mineral wealth. This agreement, signed in June 2025, aims to bring an end to three decades of conflict between the two nations. However, it also introduces a troubling arrangement where a country may trade its natural resources for security assurances from a foreign power.
Learn more: Displaced: A Sri Lankan Homecoming
The core of the deal involves both nations committing to a regional economic integration framework. This framework would involve cooperation with the US government and American investors on “transparent, formalized end-to-end mineral chains.” Despite the DRC’s vast mineral wealth, it remains one of the five poorest countries globally. The nation has been seeking US investment in its mineral sector, while the US has proposed a potential multi-billion-dollar investment programme to anchor its mineral supply chains in the DRC.
This peace deal hinges on linking mineral supply to the US in exchange for Washington’s military oversight, which is described as powerful but vaguely formulated. A joint oversight committee, including representatives from the African Union, Qatar, and the US, has been established to handle disputes between the DRC and Rwanda. However, the agreement does not specify any concrete security obligations for the US.
The relationship between the DRC and Rwanda has been marked by war and tension since the First and Second Congo Wars. At the heart of these conflicts lies the DRC’s mineral wealth, which has fueled competition, exploitation, and armed violence. This latest peace deal introduces a resources-for-security arrangement, a model that has emerged in Africa over the past two decades.
Such deals initially involved resources-for-infrastructure transactions, where foreign states would invest in infrastructure in exchange for mining rights. These arrangements have often eroded the sovereignty of mineral-rich African nations, such as the DRC and Angola. The current resources-for-security deals are even more opaque and complex than their predecessors.
The DRC’s Security Challenges
The DRC is rich in critical minerals like cobalt, copper, lithium, manganese, and tantalum, essential for modern technologies such as electric vehicles and military hardware. While Rwanda is not as mineral-rich, it is the world’s third-largest producer of tantalum, used in electronics and aerospace. For nearly 30 years, minerals have driven conflict in the eastern DRC, with armed groups vying for control over lucrative mining sites. Reports have implicated neighboring countries like Rwanda and Uganda in supporting illegal extraction of these minerals.
The DRC government has struggled to extend security across its vast territory, hindered by limited resources, logistical challenges, and corruption. This context makes the US military backing highly attractive, but our research highlights the risks involved.
Risks of Resource-For-Security Deals
Resource-for-infrastructure and resource-for-security deals often provide short-term stability or financing, but at the cost of long-term sovereign control. Certain clauses in these contracts can freeze future regulatory reforms, limit legislative autonomy, and lock in low prices for years. Disputes are often shifted to international forums, bypassing local courts, while infrastructure loans are secured via resource revenues, undermining fiscal control.
Examples of such deals include Angola’s $2 billion oil-backed loan from China Eximbank in 2004, which deprived Angolan authorities of decision-making power over oil revenues. These agreements also fragment accountability, making resource sectors vulnerable to elite capture and creating a violent kleptocracy in the DRC.
Moreover, these deals risk re-entrenching extractive trauma, with communities displaced for mining and environmental degradation causing long-term harm to livelihoods, health, and social cohesion.
What Needs to Change
Critical minerals are strategically important due to their difficulty in mining and substitution. Their supply chains are politically exposed, and whoever controls them shapes the future. African states must ensure they do not trade away their future for short-term gains.
In a world increasingly focused on critical minerals, African nations must recognize the strategic value of their resources. 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.
