When Zimbabwe banned raw base mineral ore exports in 2022, the mainly Chinese miners operating in the country moved to exporting lithium and chrome in semi-processed form as concentrates. The southern African country had realized that by allowing the export of the minerals in their raw form, it was effectively exporting jobs and revenue, while undermining industrial investment and eroding its skills base.

When in June this year the Zimbabwean government went further to announce that the export of the lithium concentrates will also be banned in the next two years upon the completion of local processing plants to ensure that the mineral is exported in the more processed form as lithium sulphate, the reaction of the Chinese miners was setting a rapacious target to export at least 60,000 tonnes of lithium concentrate before the ban takes effect.

OPEC-like coalition for bargaining power

This reaction clearly shows that the foreign mining firms benefit more from raw mineral exports to the disadvantage of the host countries. This depredatory trend has been going on across various sectors in Africa since the colonial days and continued into the post-colonial era.

It was for this reason that African leaders meeting at the African Union (AU) headquarters in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, for the Climate Summit in September, resolved to establish a coalition of member states producing strategic minerals for the purpose of ending the exploitation that is being fuelled by the global rush toward green energy. The continent, which possesses immense mineral wealth, particularly in strategic metals – over which global powers are tussling – is suffering what is generally known as a resource curse and is now trying to set terms for the exploitation and trade of its mineral resources in the same way oil-producing countries do.

Green minerals such as cobalt, lithium, copper, manganese, graphite, and vanadium, among others, are critical inputs in the production of clean energy technologies and materials – from solar panels, batteries (for both clean energy storage and for use in electric vehicles), smartphones, computers, and the whole range of digital systems. Also known as ‘digital minerals’ due to their use in high-end tech products, these minerals are key for driving the global green transition, putting them at the centre of heightened geopolitical concerns.

Beyond raw minerals exports

Through the African Green Minerals Strategy (AGMS) that the AU adopted in February this year, it was recognized that Africa must move beyond raw mineral exports to build strong, integrated value chains that promote local beneficiation, job creation, and economic diversification. To achieve this ideal, the AGMS presents an ambitious strategy to reposition Africa from a mere supplier of green minerals to a strategic partner in global mineral value chains.

Experts note that with more than half of African countries endowed with at least one of the minerals and metals essential for the energy transition, the continent is strategically positioned to generate immense local economic benefits from clean energy value chains and related industries. 

With the International Energy Agency (IEA) projecting the global demand for lithium to rise by up to fortyfold in the next two decades, while that for cobalt, nickel, and graphite is projected to grow 20-25 times, EVs and grid storage being the primary drivers, this demand targets Africa, sucking the continent into the vortex of geopolitical tussles. The experts emphasize that these shifting demand dynamics underline the urgency of coordinated action, warning that without it, oversupply shocks, price volatility, and the continued raw-ore exports could undercut the continent’s opportunity for sustainable growth.

Resource nationalism and geopolitical tussles

To counter China’s domination of the green race, the European Union (EU) last year signed a controversial minerals supply deal with Rwanda, while the United States early this year entered a minerals-for-security deal with the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). As these global powers are emphasizing domestic production of green technologies through their industrial policies, most African countries that possess these critical raw materials are resorting to resource nationalism. This has seen a number of African countries, such as Zimbabwe, Guinea, Uganda, Namibia, Zambia, Gabon, and Malawi, among others, imposing bans on raw mineral exports, while others, such as Botswana, Tanzania, and Ghana, demand substantial shareholding in the mining ventures. Others, like Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso, have resorted to outright nationalization of the mines.

‘Neo-colonial, extractive approach’

Related News

The scramble for Central Asia: Why US is rushing to push normalization, rare earths deals out of Kazakhstan

Washington’s pro-Israeli think tanks drumming up excuses for new Iran war

Audrey Gaughran, the executive director of the Amsterdam-based Centre for Research on Multination Corporations (SOMO) – a global public good organization – told Al Mayadeen English that collaboration amongst mineral-rich African countries has the potential to break the cycle whereby foreign multinationals gain the most value from the region’s resources. 

“This happens because most multinationals see it as being in the best interest of their shareholders to extract raw materials from Africa and add value elsewhere,” Gaughran said.

“We have seen this too many times in the past, such as during booms in gold, copper, or cobalt demand. Big foreign mining companies made millions but left the countries that owned the minerals with little to show for the extraction other than environmental damage and human rights abuses. The world needs Africa’s resources, and this must be on Africa’s terms.”

She said what the world is seeing is a scramble for transition minerals between the US, China, and the EU, resulting in a lot of lopsided deals.

“SOMO has been highly critical of the EU’s push to sign agreements with countries in Africa to gain access to resources,” Gaughran said. “These agreements use the same old language of ‘mutual benefit’, but in reality, represent a continuation of the neo-colonial, extractive approach that has characterized Europe’s economic relationship with Africa for decades.”

She said a strong collaboration of African nations on the issue of critical transition minerals would increase the negotiating power of countries, as well as send a powerful signal of intent in the new geopolitical context.

‘Governments seeking to assert greater control’

Dr. Carole Nakhle, a global energy expert, told Al Mayadeen English that resource-rich countries are increasingly recognizing the strategic importance of their mineral wealth to the global energy transition and the opportunities presented by rising demand.

“The recent call for a coalition of critical mineral-producing nations reflects a broader trend of host governments seeking to assert greater control over their natural resources,” she said.

Based on the continent’s past track record on making collaborative efforts, Nakhle, founder and CEO of Crystol Energy, expressed misgivings about the prospects of the latest idea.

“While this is not a new phenomenon, whether such initiatives will result in meaningful value addition and economic growth remains to be seen,” she said.

“Much will depend on the strength of national policies and the quality of governance in the extractive sector. Unfortunately, the track record across much of Africa has been mixed at best. Despite the continent’s vast resource wealth, many African nations continue to face extreme poverty and underdevelopment, highlighting a persistent disconnect between natural endowments and sustainable economic outcomes.”

Many obstacles to overcome

Gaughran highlighted that factors to be considered for the proposed coalition to succeed include challenges for value addition, including China’s dominance in the processing of key critical minerals; the investment in infrastructure that is needed to enable processing; and the fact that economically powerful countries and entities can leverage Africa’s debt to push countries to continue to focus on the export of raw materials. 

“Any strategy to capture the full value of Africa’s critical minerals needs to go well beyond issues of mining and processing. A sectoral focus has limits because many of the reasons African countries have lost out in previous mineral booms are due to wider investment, tax, and trade frameworks. But African countries could leverage global demand for critical minerals, using it as a bargaining tool to reset some of the terms of economic engagement with other regions, including tying access to minerals to debt relief.”

Fierce competition

The experts say timing is critical. China has established a dominant position in mining stakes and refining capacity, controlling 60% of cobalt refining and over 80% of rare earth processing. The Asian giant secures supplies through debt-for-resources deals and vertical integration. Rivals like the US, the EU, Japan, and Saudi Arabia are moving fast to counter China’s dominance in the sector.

With this cutthroat competition going on, experts say that for African producers, the coalition could amplify bargaining power, but only if they collaborate instead of cutting bilateral deals.

“Africa’s mineral bloc will stand or fall on execution,” wrote Cynthia Ebot Takang, an African business analyst. “The Addis Ababa launch was only a first step. Unless a binding framework emerges by 2026, global buyers will continue to dictate terms, and the continent will remain a price taker. With the clean-energy economy racing ahead, this coalition is not optional—it is Africa’s chance to shape its own future in minerals.”

Gaughran said the other strategy would be for African countries to consider ending bilateral investment treaties that contain clauses, such as investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), which undermine their sovereignty.

“In 2023, Kenya unilaterally ended its bilateral investment treaty with the Netherlands, which economic justice advocates consider an important step. SOMO worked with partner organisations in Kenya to promote this move, as the treaty gave businesses registered in Netherlands undue power when operating in Kenya.”