In scrambling for critical raw materials, the US and EU could be complicit with ‘blood minerals’
The scramble for access to minerals is a major geopolitical power game that is keeping the United States (US) and the European Union (EU) busy trying to sign access deals with African states.
The rationale is simple: They need the Critical Raw Materials to power their green transitions, even if the new Trump administration is likely to delay this as long as possible.
The US and EU are also both aware that they have some catching up to do. China not only has superior access to minerals but also controls much of the infrastructure to refine them.
But that haste comes at a price.
Both have cut minerals-access deals with DR Congo. The EU, meanwhile, agreed to a memorandum of understanding with Rwanda in March 2024—a controversial deal at the time. Unlike its neighbor, Rwanda is not mineral rich. Even before the dramatic escalation of the war in eastern Congo in December and January, that saw a series of major towns and mining sites being captured by the M23 militia group and the Rwandan army, the Congolese government was warning that minerals from its territory were being smuggled into Rwanda.
A report by a United Nations expert group in June found that the M23 militia group, which is supported by the Rwandan government, had taken control of a series of mines in Rubaya and Masisi in eastern DR Congo. Tantalum, a rare metal extracted from coltan, and cobalt were then being smuggled across the border into Rwanda and then sold on to Europe and elsewhere. Rwanda’s coltan exports increased by 40% last year.
Following the capture of Goma, the main city in eastern Congo’s Kivu region, Congolese foreign minister Thérèse Kayikwamba Wagner demanded a "total embargo on exports of all minerals labelled as Rwandan, in particular coltan and gold."
The Belgian government has urged the EU to suspend its minerals agreement with Rwanda.
For the moment, the European Commission insists that the agreement is working just fine.
A spokesperson for the Commission maintains that one of the main objectives of the MOU is to “support the sustainable and responsible sourcing, production, and processing of raw materials. The goal is therefore also to increase traceability and transparency and to reinforce the fight against illegal trafficking of minerals.”
The spokesperson went on to explain to Sēk Strategies that “the MoU enables a dialogue with Rwanda, allowing [the EU] to actively promote the principles of transparency and traceability, particularly through participating in the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI).”
What the deal with Rwanda also exposes is the lack of accountability at the heart of these agreements. DR Congo’s lawyers have filed a lawsuit against Apple’s subsidiaries in France and Belgium which asserts that they have used ‘blood minerals’ looted from Congo and smuggled into Rwanda. But if Apple is found to be complicit, so is the EU.
Companies wanting to source minerals as part of these access agreements also need to be aware of the financial and non-financial risks, not to mention the reputational damage that receiving ‘blood minerals’ may cause.
The EU and African Union are at the annual Mining Indaba in Cape Town, hosting an event today, on 3 February. Promotion material ahead of the Indaba points to “EU initiatives aimed at promoting investment in Africa’s mining sector” and argues that the EU’s “minerals-access” pacts focus on “responsible mining practices, environmental sustainability and local capacity building.”
But pinning accountability on the EITI’s reporting standards, which are only voluntary, looks weak.