Is Colonialism Changing Hands in Congo?
The U.S. May Return to Congo’s Mines
The New York Times recently reported that “Democratic
Republic of Congo President Félix Tshisekedi had offered the United States a
share in the country’s mineral wealth in exchange for securing stability and
protecting strategic resources.”
Later, these claims were softened with official statements saying that
President Tshisekedi had merely invited the U.S. to buy minerals directly from
Congo—their rightful owner—rather than through smuggling networks via Rwanda.
For weeks now, speculation has been growing in Kinshasa about the possibility
of a U.S.-Congo agreement.
If Washington considers the offer, it could reshape a mining
sector currently dominated by China. Hopes are also tied to increased U.S.
funding for the completion of the $6 billion Lobito Corridor project, which
will connect Angola’s largest port with Zambia and Congo. But major questions
remain about whether violence can be curbed and security established in the
region.
A $24 Trillion Mineral Reserve
Congo is one of Africa’s richest countries in natural
resources, and the world’s leading producer of cobalt—a critical mineral for
defense industries, aviation, electric vehicles, tablets, and smartphones.
Alongside gold, copper, and tin, Congo’s resources are immense. Yet the country
has been ravaged in recent months by Rwanda-backed M23 rebels, whose attacks
have killed over 7,000 people and displaced hundreds of thousands.
China controls 35 of Congo’s 61 officially registered cobalt
mines, holding 76% of the country’s cobalt reserves. By contrast, the Congolese
state owns just 13 mines, amounting to barely 1% of reserves. (The rest are run
by companies from Kazakhstan, India, Switzerland, and Australia.)
The United States has no official cobalt mining operations in Congo, sourcing
the mineral instead through European markets. In today’s intensifying
technology wars, Congo’s yet-to-be-exploited mineral reserves—valued at $24 trillion—make
Tshisekedi’s proposal very tempting for Washington.
For the U.S., access to Congo’s minerals would not be
entirely new. During the Belgian colonial period, American companies played a
central role in the exploitation of Congo’s resources.
The American Footprint in Congo’s Past
Under the brutal rule of King Leopold II of Belgium,
millions of Congolese were mutilated, children kidnapped, women held hostage,
and the hands of laborers who failed to meet rubber quotas were severed. This
era of atrocities sparked the formation of the American and British Congo
Reform Associations in 1904, with activists like Mark Twain, British journalist
E.D. Morel, and Irish revolutionary Roger Casement mobilizing public opinion
and pressing governments to intervene.
In response, Leopold’s American adviser Henry Wellington
Wack sought to bring American capital to his side. Around the same time,
financier J.P. Morgan was negotiating with Leopold, while U.S. industrial
magnates Thomas Fortune Ryan and John D. Rockefeller gathered in Brussels. In
1906, Ryan and Daniel Guggenheim established the American Congo Company,
securing a 99-year lease over 10,000 square kilometers for rubber extraction,
along with an option to purchase 5,000 square kilometers.
American financiers went further still, founding the Société
Internationale Forestière et Minière du Congo (International Forestry and
Mining Company of Congo). Within six years, they secured a 99-year monopoly
over all minerals discovered in a region covering nearly half the country. Each
concession granted to the Americans also brought major shares to Leopold,
Belgian bankers, and their collaborators.
Lobito Corridor: A New Opportunity for Exploitation
Despite claims of seeking peace, both the U.S. and European
powers benefit from continued instability in Congo. Their priority is not
sustainable solutions, but gaining access to resources at the lowest possible
cost.
The Lobito Corridor—linking Congo and Zambia’s mineral-rich
regions to Angola’s Lobito port—offers exactly such an opportunity. But with
its high costs, some doubt whether the project will ever be completed.
At present, raw materials from southern Congo are shipped
from Kolwezi to Durban in South Africa or Dar es Salaam in Tanzania before
reaching London’s metals markets. A completed Lobito Corridor would save both
time and costs.
Yet little is expected to change for ordinary Congolese.
With over 100 million people, the country sees little hope in the promise of
just 30,000 new jobs. Congo, Angola, and Zambia still lack the technology to
process these resources locally, meaning the export of raw materials will
continue—and the profits will largely flow abroad.
If realized, the Lobito Corridor will benefit America and
global investors far more than the local populations.
From China’s Monopoly to U.S. Neocolonialism?
President Tshisekedi, who once rejected Turkey’s offer to
mediate between Congo and Rwanda on the grounds that “Africa needs African
solutions,” now places his hopes in Washington—a power whose interventions
often leave countries worse off. By courting an American administration that
under Trump barely considered Africa at all, Tshisekedi risks opening the
country’s minerals to a new wave of exploitation.
If Trump shows interest (reports suggest his daughter’s
father-in-law, Massad Boulos, may already be appointed as Congo envoy), the
move could shift Congo from Chinese to American dominance—essentially a change
in colonial hands.
China, once granted mining concessions in exchange for
infrastructure projects, has been criticized for failing to deliver on many of
its promises, including jobs and development. But drawing the U.S. into Congo
risks deepening instability, pushing both Congo and its neighbors into greater
chaos, and leaving their people poorer and more vulnerable in the long run.
This article was originally published in Independent Türkçe, on March 26, 2025.
Comments
Post a Comment