ACE

Author: Zachary Booth

  • US Involvement in Central African Mining

    US Involvement in Central African Mining

    Cobalt, originally seen as a simple byproduct of copper or nickel mining, has recently become a critical mineral due to its use in lithium-ion batteries. These batteries are lightweight and rechargeable, and are important features in portable technology and energy grids. Cobalt’s demand is on the rise as eco-friendly technology, made possible with rechargeable batteries, provides an alternative for fossil fuels. The International Energy Association’s special report on critical minerals predicts that cobalt will see over a 60% rise in demand as countries attempt to meet the Paris Agreement’s emission goals. 

    Much of that cobalt comes from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) as the central African nation is home to over 70% of the world’s cobalt production. Still, the country’s history of conflict and corruption has stifled economic development, resulting in widespread poverty and a substantial informal sector. These factors complicate involvement. While minerals such as cobalt provide an incentive for external investors and a symbol of potential prosperity, their coveted nature can lead to conflict and further issues for those who participate in its extraction.

    US Energy Demands and Domestic Production

    Recent US policies reflect a demand for green energy and the corresponding necessary resources. In 2021, Biden passed the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law which included an emphasis on electrical vehicles and clean energy technologies. The following year’s Inflation Reduction act invested in new energy projects and other technology that uses cobalt. Investing in DRC cobalt mines could provide the foundational resources for many of the new projects. As part of these new pieces of legislation, the Biden Administration aims to focus locally and encourage internal markets for clean energy rather than relying on foreign powers with competing interests.

    Because of this, some argue that the US should focus more on mining cobalt domestically. For example, Representative Strauber of Minnesota claimed that investing in Congolese projects both supports the pervasive human rights abuses and sacrifices domestic job opportunity. If the US can mine Cobalt domestically, then this would directly speak to Biden’s goal of a more domestic clean energy industry. However, local mining has been expensive and inefficient with only three projects opening since 2002. One project in the Idaho Cobalt Belt took over 20 years to begin production. Through these mines, the US was able to produce 700 tons of cobalt in 2021, but it still had to import 9,900 tons to match demands. Increasing involvement within the DRC could help address the rising need for cobalt and avoid dealing with potential rivals.

    Competition with China

    The most prominent rival is China, who dominates cobalt mining in the region. Chinese corporations provide infrastructure investments in exchange for mining opportunities as a way to expand influence and secure control over early stages of the energy supply chain. In 2005, then-DRC president, Joseph Kabila, negotiated with China to reach a $6 billion infrastructure deal to fund schools, hospitals, and roads in exchange for copper and cobalt. As of 2023, China owns all but one cobalt mine within the country.

    Even so, the Congolese people often feel exploited by current contracts with the Chinese and hope to secure a more equal partnership. Reflecting this new goal, the DRC is looking to re-negotiate the aforementioned infrastructure-for-minerals deal. In 2022, the DRC government began investigating Chinese mining companies for evading payments. One such investigation resulted in restricting China Molybdenum Co.’s control of the Tenke Fungurume mine. The recent pushback against China may also spur an effort to find new partnerships with countries such as the US.

    In a May 2022 speech, Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken characterized the US strategy towards China as one of economic competition for both technology and foreign influence. Investing in the DRC’s cobalt mining would increase US power in both. Currently the US is not a dominant player in either the production or the raw material side when it comes to battery technologies, and the DRC’s dissatisfaction with China is an opportunity for the US to improve its position in the energy supply chain. 

    Already, the US has attempted to expand connections to the DRC through a Memorandum of Understanding focused on electric vehicle batteries. This agreement between the DRC, US, and Zambia expresses a shared interest in improving growth within the African countries’ mining and industrial sectors. However, the memorandum does not include any legally binding components or funding, making the agreement more symbolic than functional. Moreover, the US is starting at a disadvantage when it comes to controlling mines since it sold the one American-owned DRC cobalt mine to China in 2016.

    Human Rights Abuses

    The US is hesitant to increase ties with the DRC’s mining industry because of the many current human rights abuse scandals. NPR has referred to the cobalt mining projects within the DRC as modern day slavery due to the extreme poverty and coercive forces leading people into the mines. New projects displace villages, leaving the people at risk of homelessness and often creating situations where the only economic opportunity is to work in the mines The slave-like conditions are part of a process called artisanal mining which is done informally and without heavy equipment. Artisanal miners then sell their resources to industrial mining companies. The inhumanely acquired resources enter the formal supply chain through money laundering, untraced and unquestioned. 

    To address this issue, the Fair Cobalt Alliance works to improve labor conditions for artisanal miners and harness their production to create a more formal supply chain. American corporations such as Google have invested in the project, suggesting an avenue for US soft power and influence within the region. Other multinational corporations involved in the mining process include Microsoft, who has “committed to responsible and ethical sourcing” of cobalt and Apple, who aims to decrease reliance on mines altogether due to the history of inhumane conditions. These actions by larger companies apply pressure to DRC mines to improve labor standards and lay the groundwork for future relationships.

    Even so, the DRC has not met the US’s standards for eliminating human trafficking and is on the US Department of State’s watchlist. Trafficking also often leads to child labor, which the US has made efforts to address. The Combating Child Labor in the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s Cobalt Industry (COTECCO) project focuses on child labor in artisanal mining and trains DRC representatives to combat the issue. By expanding its engagement in the mining sector and at a national level, the US has the potential to tackle issues at both the policy and corporate levels. Such an undertaking is both expensive and time consuming when the US has historically utilized less controversial partners such as Norway and Canada for cobalt.

    FTA Opportunity

    The US could improve trade with the DRC directly through a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) as this would deepen ties between the countries and allow for additional benefits under Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Through expanding trade agreements with the DRC, the US can incentivize closer ties and provide subsidies or tax cuts around targeted resources to ensure American companies are some of the most compelling buyers. As it stands now, the IRA pushes the DRC away because many of the plan’s critical mineral subsidies are restricted to countries with FTAs.

    FTAs can also incorporate explicit incentives to advance specific policy objectives that the US aims to tackle in a given country. For instance, the US’s FTA with Peru contains specific environmental goals to minimize deforestation. An FTA with the DRC could incorporate guidelines that directly address human rights abuses within the mining sector. There is also an incentive to include an environmental component similar to the Peruvian FTA as current DRC mining has resulted in crop death and damaged soil within the surrounding areas due to cobalt’s toxic nature. Expanding mining projects within the Congo Basin also threatens the forest and surrounding ecosystems.

    The cobalt mines within the DRC raise a complicated challenge. While the United States races against China for control of energy sources and technology, the inhumane conditions and ecological threats associated with congolese mining are heavy deterrents. Moving forward, the US must decide how to address the rising demand for cobalt without compromising its foreign policy goals.

  • US Response to Deforestation in the Congo Basin

    US Response to Deforestation in the Congo Basin

    The Congo Basin spans six Central African countries: Cameroon, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon and Republic of the Congo. The basin is home to the world’s second largest rainforest, measuring 500 million acres, and hundreds of thousands of local species. In the past decade, however, the rainforest has faced the encroaching threat of commercial agriculture and resource exploitation. Since 2013, expansion in commercial agriculture and the logging industry throughout Africa has destroyed thousands of acres of forest.

    Most of this agro conversion is done illegally, as companies fail to obtain the proper license or blatantly violate allotted boundaries and other legislation. For example, the European company Norsudtimber has illegal logging sites throughout 40,000 square kilometers of rainforest. The new farmland and extraction sites are mainly a result of a high global demand for valuable natural resources. Companies harvest palm oil and rubber or oil from the 16 blocs located throughout the forested region. Further exacerbating the uncontrolled deforestation is a lack of local government capacity, especially in terms of financial resources or incentives to adequately protect their forests. The combined demand for resources and lack of an effective counter to illegal practices has led to a steady increase in deforestation.

    Deforestation and Climate Change

    Deforestation in the Congo Basin goes beyond the scope of Central Africa as it ties into the larger issue of global climate change. The destruction of tropical forests affects global warming because the various trees and vegetation remove carbon from the atmosphere through a process known as sequestration. Deforestation releases carbon back into the atmosphere and limits the potential for further reabsorption. If global deforestation persists at its current rate, the resulting emissions will use up nearly 20% of the emissions budget established in the Paris Agreement. 

    The effects of deforestation and the resulting expedited global warming has already started to impact Americans in tangible ways. Most recently, much of the East Coast was subjected to dangerous air quality as a result of Canadian wildfires. These wildfires are enhanced by the drier climate created through global warming. As wildfires increase in size and severity, they expedite emissions and further the global warming process to create a dangerous cycle.

    The Current Approach

    In 2021, President Biden released an executive order about combating climate change that led to The Plan to Conserve Global Forests: Critical Carbon Sinks. This plan emphasizes an economic approach to preventing deforestation through methods of increasing investment in conservationist programs and offering “debt-for-nature swaps.” These “swaps” allow nations indebted to the United States to instead redirect that money towards conservation. 

    The Biden Administration has identified climate change, including the specific concern of deforestation, as significant threats to the US. The administration is actively taking measures to tackle this problem. For example, Biden signed onto a joint donor statement with several other countries and the Bezos’ Earth Fund to pledge $1.5 billion between 2021-2025 towards protecting the Congo Basin forests. Since then, in 2022, Biden released an executive order outlining his administration’s goals on preventing deforestation both locally and internationally as a protection against climate change and other environmental issues. As part of this order, Biden tasked his cabinet with creating a proposed plan of action around illegal production on deforested lands, including working with local governments on enforcing forest-protecting law. These steps represent a foreign policy focused on monetary aid towards eliminating deforestation and a direct acknowledgement of the situation within the Congo Basin.

    Extent of Involvement

    Some argue that the current aid and actions taken by the US to combat deforestation in the Congo Basin are enough. One concern about increasing involvement is the associated cost. The US Agency for International Development (USAID) recognizes the substantial financial and time commitment required for analysis before allocating more aid. Considering the significant financial support already provided by the US, it’s unclear if additional funding is necessary. Apart from financial aid, the US Forest Service collaborates with universities and NGOs in Congo Basin countries to establish an institutional approach to forest conservation. This type of support primarily aims to empower these countries to address deforestation internally. This raises the question of whether working at the national level is sufficient or if the US should take a more direct role.

    An alternative approach to the issue is for the US and local governments to rely on the indigenous communities to regulate the forests instead of getting involved themselves. In 2018, the DRC granted the Nkala people the right to govern a portion of the rainforest, and since then the territory has seen a diversification in crops, improved protection against extreme weather, and general sustainability. These systems do not, however, address the issue of resource demand and weak government protection for those indigenous communities.

    Increasing Aid

    The Interfaith Rainforest Initiative provides an argument for greater direct involvement. While the present deforestation emissions are minor, they contribute to 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions when considering forest regrowth. Halting deforestation and promoting reforestation could potentially cut global emissions by over 30%. This is because the approach prevents emissions and allows for more CO2 removal as new forests grow. These findings justify the call for greater US engagement, not only to reduce emissions but also to initiate a reversal of the climate change trend.

    One possible way to get involved is by establishing trade guidelines. Trade historically has worked as a means to promote American international interests such as the Environmental Cooperation Agreement within the US’s Free Trade Agreement with Peru. Whether it is creating a fleshed out trade agreement with environmental provisions or just creating more guidelines to prevent the trade/resell of materials illegally extracted from deforestation, the US can take a stronger commercial policy stance.

    Environmentalists and other individuals with strong demands for increased involvement see a need for more direct approaches, such as increasing USAID funding to promote donations towards combating deforestation. As of April 2023, USAID’s Central Africa Regional Program for the Environment (CARPE) has already invested more than $600 million to tackle the many components of the deforestation issue. Biden’s budget proposal looks to increase funding for USAID and directly financially support African nations in conservationist measures. 

    Decreasing Aid and Other Alternatives

    Some are vehemently opposed to Biden’s foreign aid budget as part of an alternative spending plan. Some individuals aim to reduce spending and trim the government budget to address the debt crisis. This approach involves cutting areas considered less essential. For some, providing financial assistance to the Congo Basin might be seen as a potentially unnecessary expense. Some individuals view providing financial aid to the Congo Basin as potentially unnecessary. This perspective is partly rooted in concerns about corruption and inefficient use of US contributions, particularly in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Funds acquired through the Central African Forest Initiative (CAFI) are not directly given to the Congolese government due to corruption fears. Nevertheless, the DRC’s environmental minister has highlighted the significant loss of funds to administrative expenses under the existing system. Given this unclear monetary aid setup, those against involvement in the region contend that it may not be worthwhile.

    In addition, some argue that deforestation within the Congo Basin is beneficial because of the many resources produced from the newly opened areas. The US could benefit from the resources procured through increased mining projects such as oil and cobalt. The US government’s trade profile on the DRC labels the country as “in a strategic position for the energy transition” because of its “substantial untapped gold, cobalt, and high-grade copper reserves.” Some believe the US stands to gain large quantities of critical minerals if it invests in future mining projects rather than preventing deforestation in the Congo Basin. 

    Beyond the US gains, the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) shows that countries in early development stages are expected to see large jumps in carbon emissions. The rise in deforestation within Central Africa follows the initial part of the EKC. All the while, if Congo Basin countries transitions towards manufacturing over agriculture (part of the developing progression), then deforestation is predicted to decrease.  Deforestation may be a temporary and necessary part of Central African development. In fact, members of the Global South have expressed resentment towards the more industrialized nations’ supposed environmentalist stance because the countries promoting environmental protections within Africa are the same nations who historically exploited natural resources to reach their current standing. 

    The issue of deforestation within the Congo Basin is multifaceted with environmental, financial, and political concerns combining to reach a range of conclusions around how involved the US should really be. Within the US, addressing climate change is now a priority for 52% of voters. With that being said, people disagree if the Congo Basin is the best avenue for combating climate change. 

  • US Involvement in the Lithium Triangle

    US Involvement in the Lithium Triangle

    Lithium, also known as white gold, is an important component in rechargeable batteries. These batteries are used in portable technology such as cell phones and laptops, as well as large scale electrical components. Specifically, Lithium-ion batteries store energy for solar panels, electric vehicles, and wind turbines making the resource essential for shifting away from fossil fuels. As a result, demand for lithium is on the rise, and the global consumption of lithium increased by over 40% in 2022.

    Lithium is mostly extracted from brine lake deposits or salares, as these locations have the highest concentration of the mineral. While there are several salares in the United States, the most lithium-rich salares are in Bolivia, Chile, and Argentina. In fact, the overlapping area between these countries is home to over half of the world’s lithium, garnering this region the title of the “Lithium Triangle.”

    The US has several domestic lithium projects such as Abermale’s mine in Silver Peak Nevada or Lithium Americas’ upcoming Thacker Pass mine on the Oregon-Nevada border. Even so, these mines cannot match domestic demand, hence why the US has already started working with Lithium Triangle nations and imported over 90% of its lithium from Argentina and Chile between 2016-2019. 

    Demand for Clean Energy and Lithium

    The Biden Administration recently passed legislation investing in clean energy and the lithium industry. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law included an emphasis on electrical vehicles and clean energy technologies. Specifically, the deal contained a $65 billion investment in innovations within the sphere of clean energy as part of the overall goal to become a zero-emissions economy. The following year the administration passed the Inflation Reduction Act which provided funding to domestic-based clean energy projects and battery production. These two bills represent a conscious effort to enhance US energy production, thus requiring more lithium.

    Several Republicans are skeptical of the Inflation Reduction Act, claiming that the subsidies for battery production would end up supporting Chinese companies. Republican Frank Lucas wrote a letter to the Department of Energy questioning a grant for Microvast, a company with Chinese ties. These concerns highlight the larger issue of competing with China for control of the lithium industry.

    Competition with China 

    China is the US’s main rival in lithium battery technologies, as well as the electric vehicle sector. In a recent speech, Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken reaffirmed that the US strategy towards China is based on economic competition, especially through technological production and foreign influence. Meanwhile, Chinese companies are at the forefront of battery production and several Chinese mining companies have purchased shares in Lithium Triangle operations.

    The Department of Energy recognizes a Chinese dominance on the lithium-ion battery supply chain. This power is increased through investment in the mining process. The DOE approved National Blueprint for Lithium Batteries highlights working with allies to ensure a steady supply of the critical mineral and create more domestic processing sites. Investing in the Lithium Triangle could help the US compete by counteracting China’s recent acquisitions. 

    Extent of Involvement

    In June of 2022, the US announced its Minerals Security Partnership in hopes of addressing the rising demand for critical minerals used in clean energy; however, the Lithium Triangle countries were not included in this partnership. Although the US recognizes a need for lithium importation, it is not set on partnering with these South American countries. This leaves involvement in the Lithium Triangle to the private sector through companies such as Abermale and Lithium Americas. 

    In examining this involvement, it is important to note that China has already beat out US involvement in Bolivia as the government has recently partnered with several Chinese firms to manage the country’s lithium mining. Meanwhile, Chile’s mining sector is heavily state controlled with only two companies allowed to operate, again limiting options. Argentina is more open to foreign companies with 36 projects as of 2023. The success of American owned company Livent demonstrates an opportunity for more private involvement in the region. Still, additional companies in Argentina may need US financial support because of the overall risk in doing business within the country. 

    The Inflation Reduction Act provides a potential for these partnerships. The plan includes tax cuts for foreign companies within the battery production industry. That being said, this financial support only applies to countries with US free trade agreements which neither Argentina nor Bolivia have. Several Republicans, on the other hand, prioritize supporting domestic mining projects rather than expanding these financial partnerships to the rest of the Lithium Triangle.   

    Ecological Damage

    Another issue to consider with these lithium mines is the local ecological threat. Throughout the Lithium Triangle, mining operations resulted in a decrease in the Flamingo population as well as general harm to the nearby wetland nature reserves. Additionally, the process of water evaporation needed to extract lithium is hurting transandean Indigenous populations by depleting their water supply. With increased US involvement in the region, the mining operations would only grow to match American demands and as a result the potential for further harming the environment and local communities would increase as well.

    The debate around American involvement in the Lithium Triangle boils down to whether the private and domestic sectors can provide enough to match US demands or if the government has to invest more. No matter what, the International Energy Association predicts that the demand for lithium will rise over 90% if countries hope to meet the Paris Agreement in the next couple of decades, so the importance of the lithium industry is not going away.

  • Zachary Booth, Hamilton College

    Zachary Booth, Hamilton College

    Zach Booth (he/him) is a student at Hamilton College where he is majoring in Latin American Politics and Hispanic Studies. While at Hamilton, Zach has developed an interest in foreign policy especially focused on Argentina. In addition to taking a range of Spanish and government classes, Zach is a member of the school’s Model United Nations traveling team. He plans to study abroad in Buenos Aires next year to gain hands-on experience with relevant policy and further expand his understanding of Argentina and the region at large. When not reading about foreign policy and other global news, Zach enjoys word games such as Bananagrams, Scrabble, and crossword puzzles. You can often find him slowly working through the New York Times crossword each evening.

    Linkedin