
Scramble for critical minerals
As it stands, China is leading the pack, having gained ownership or control over an estimated 60-80 per cent of the critical minerals that are needed for industry (such as for magnets) and the green transition. This control extends across the supply chain: China is heavily invested in mining across Africa, Central Asia, and Latin America, and has been building up its processing capabilities.
For Western powers, China's quasi-monopoly over critical minerals looks like an economic and national-security threat. This fear is not unfounded. In December 2024, China restricted exports of critical minerals to the US in retaliation for US restrictions on exports of advanced microchips to China.
Since then, US President Donald Trump has forced Ukraine to relinquish a significant share of its critical minerals to the US in what he presents as repayment for American support in its fight against Russia. Trump also wants US sovereignty over mineral-rich Greenland, to the dismay of Denmark. And he has suggested that Canada, with all its natural resources, become America's 51st state. The European Union, for its part, has sought its own mining contracts, such as in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).
From the Scramble for Africa in the nineteenth century to Western attempts to claim Middle Eastern oil in the twentieth century, such resource grabs are hardly new. They reflect a fundamental asymmetry: less industrialised developing economies tend to consume fewer resources than they produce, whereas the opposite is true for developed economies – and, nowadays, China.
In principle, this asymmetry creates ideal conditions for mutually beneficial agreements: industrialised economies get the resources they desire, and non-industrialised economies get a windfall, which they can use to bolster their own development. But, in reality, vast natural-resource endowments have proven to be more of a curse than a blessing, with resource-rich countries often developing more slowly than their resource-poor counterparts.
A key reason for this is that developed economies have more economic clout, advanced technology, and military might – all of which they bring to bear to acquire the resources they seek. For example, European imperial powers used steam-engine technology to help them explore and exploit Africa for resources like copper, tin, rubber, timber, diamonds, and gold in the nineteenth century. This, together with more advanced weaponry and other technologies, meant that, far from offering local communities fair compensation for their valuable resources, European powers could subjugate those communities and use their labour to extract and transport what they wanted.
But even countries that are exporting their resources for a profit have often struggled to make progress on development, not only because of imbalanced deals with more powerful resource importers, but also because their governments have often mismanaged the associated bonanzas. It does not help that resource-rich countries and regions often grapple with internal and external conflicts.
Consider the mineral-rich provinces of the DRC, such as Katanga and North Kivu, which have long suffered from violence and lawlessness, fuelled by neighbours such as Rwanda and Uganda. Today, the advance of the Rwanda-backed M23 rebels is fuelling bloodshed in eastern Congo – and creating an opportunity for outside powers to gain access to critical minerals. The DRC-Rwanda peace agreement brokered by the Trump administration promises precisely such access to the US, in exchange for security guarantees.
But the resource curse is not inescapable, especially for countries with strong outward-facing institutions to manage the economy's external relations, including its resource sector's ability to attract investment and generate revenues for the state, and inward-facing institutions to govern how those revenues are used. If a country is to translate its resource endowments into economic development and improvements in human well-being, both have a critical role to play.
Outward-facing institutions must negotiate fair and transparent mining contracts with multinational corporations and strengthen local governments' ability to do the same. Such contracts should include local-content requirements, which keep more high-value-added processing activities at home, increase local employment and strengthen the capacity of local suppliers and contractors. Since acquiring a 15 per cent stake in De Beers, Botswana has sought to ensure that diamond cutting – not just mining – occurs domestically, which requires inward-facing institutions to deliver adequate investment in these capabilities.
Inward-facing institutions must also manage risks raised by resource extraction, from health and environmental damage (deforestation, biodiversity loss, pollution) to labour-rights violations (including child labour). Unfortunately, as it stands, many mineral-rich countries are falling far short, leading some to advocate boycotts of critical minerals coming from conflict zones or countries using forced labour. While such boycotts are unlikely to sway these governments, they could convince multinationals and foreign governments to demand better enforcement of environmental and social standards from countries with which they do business.
Ultimately, however, it is up to mineral-rich countries to defend their interests and make the most of their endowments. This starts with efforts to strengthen institutions. @Project Syndicate, 2025
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Times of Oman
3 hours ago
- Times of Oman
Trump unwilling to criticise China even after being largest Russian oil buyers, targets India unfairly: GTRI report
New Delhi: US President Donald Trump has been unfairly targeting India over Russian oil imports, while choosing not to criticise China, according to a recent report by the Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI). The report suggested that this selective approach may be driven by geopolitical calculations. As per the data from the report, China is the largest buyer of Russian oil. In 2024, China imported USD 62.6 billion worth of Russian oil, compared to India's USD 52.7 billion. Despite this, Trump has focused his criticism on India, ignoring China's bigger role. GTRI stated, "Trump appears unwilling to criticize China, perhaps because of geopolitical calculations, and instead targets India unfairly". The report also rejects Trump's recent claim posted on Truth Social, where he alleged that India is "buying massive amounts of Russian oil and selling it on the open market for big profits." GTRI clarified that this statement is factually incorrect and misleading. The think tank explained that India does not export crude oil, Russian or otherwise. India is a net importer of crude oil, and its total crude oil exports stand at zero. What India does export are refined petroleum products, including diesel and jet fuel, some of which are processed from Russian crude. This is standard practice among energy-importing countries, the report said. GTRI further stated that India's oil refineries, both public and private, operate independently in deciding where to source crude oil from. These companies do not need government permission to buy oil from Russia or any other country. Their decisions are based on commercial considerations, including price, supply reliability, and rules in export destinations. The report noted that if Indian refiners find that importing Russian crude involves risks, such as secondary sanctions or restricted access to global markets, they may reduce or stop such imports voluntarily. For example, India exported diesel and aviation turbine fuel (ATF) to the European Union in FY2025, but these exports will now stop due to the EU's ban on products refined from Russian crude. In such cases, refiners will shift away from Russian oil without needing a government order. This trend is already visible. In May 2025, India's imports from Russia declined by 9.8 per cent, amounting to USD 9.2 billion, compared to imports in May 2024. The GTRI report concluded that India is being unfairly targeted, while China's larger role goes unquestioned, possibly due to broader geopolitical interests.


Times of Oman
3 hours ago
- Times of Oman
Trump unwilling to criticize China even after being largest Russian oil buyers, targets India unfairly: GTRI report
New Delhi: US President Donald Trump has been unfairly targeting India over Russian oil imports, while choosing not to criticise China, according to a recent report by the Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI). The report suggested that this selective approach may be driven by geopolitical calculations. As per the data from the report, China is the largest buyer of Russian oil. In 2024, China imported USD 62.6 billion worth of Russian oil, compared to India's USD 52.7 billion. Despite this, Trump has focused his criticism on India, ignoring China's bigger role. GTRI stated, "Trump appears unwilling to criticize China, perhaps because of geopolitical calculations, and instead targets India unfairly". The report also rejects Trump's recent claim posted on Truth Social, where he alleged that India is "buying massive amounts of Russian oil and selling it on the open market for big profits." GTRI clarified that this statement is factually incorrect and misleading. The think tank explained that India does not export crude oil, Russian or otherwise. India is a net importer of crude oil, and its total crude oil exports stand at zero. What India does export are refined petroleum products, including diesel and jet fuel, some of which are processed from Russian crude. This is standard practice among energy-importing countries, the report said. GTRI further stated that India's oil refineries, both public and private, operate independently in deciding where to source crude oil from. These companies do not need government permission to buy oil from Russia or any other country. Their decisions are based on commercial considerations, including price, supply reliability, and rules in export destinations. The report noted that if Indian refiners find that importing Russian crude involves risks, such as secondary sanctions or restricted access to global markets, they may reduce or stop such imports voluntarily. For example, India exported diesel and aviation turbine fuel (ATF) to the European Union in FY2025, but these exports will now stop due to the EU's ban on products refined from Russian crude. In such cases, refiners will shift away from Russian oil without needing a government order. This trend is already visible. In May 2025, India's imports from Russia declined by 9.8 per cent, amounting to USD 9.2 billion, compared to imports in May 2024. The GTRI report concluded that India is being unfairly targeted, while China's larger role goes unquestioned, possibly due to broader geopolitical interests.


Times of Oman
3 hours ago
- Times of Oman
Indian textile exporters say, US exports loss because of 25% tariffs will be compensated by FTAs
New Delhi: Indian textile exporters says that exports loss because of U.S the imposition of 25 per cent tariffs by U.S. President Donald Trump will be compensated by gains in exports due to free trade agreements (FTAs) which India's has signed with other nations. Exporters remain confident about their future and are urging the Indian government to take proactive steps to support the industry. Champalal Bothra, National Chairman of the Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) told ANI that, "Despite Donald Trump imposing tariffs on India, the textile industry is not facing any problems. We want to tell the Indian government that the 35 per cent of our exports that go to the US can be compensated through free trade agreements (FTAs), by amending government policies and by exporting to other countries by reducing costs. If any country tries to bind it, India will not stop. The trader here will not work under the pressure of tariffs; it will find a new market and thrive." In the exclusive conversation with ANI, textile traders from Surat said that their market will not be affected by the new tariffs. They believe that Indian traders are capable of overcoming such challenges by exploring new markets and reducing manufacturing costs. Bothra added, " India's textile traders are in such a strong position that they can create their market anywhere in the world. The US introduced Indian clothes in countries like Bangladesh, Vietnam and Cambodia in such a way that it showed India as a competitor to China." He further stressed that with proper government support, especially for Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs), India can face tariffs effectively. "New markets can be found in Europe, South Africa, Japan or Central Asia," he said. Echoing a similar sentiment, textile trader Vikas Gupta said, "The tariff being imposed by the US is in discussion; side by side, the Indian government should explore parallel options, like changes in policies and subsidies, so that our manufacturing cost reduces and the 35 per cent supply to the US is maintained along with finding other markets." He added, "We can then also take it as an opportunity. There are European, African and Asian countries where we have the scope to compete. If the government policies are good, we can also supply material to Vietnam, Bangladesh and China. People of Surat have never worked under pressure and never will. We will maintain our business through reduced costing instead." With confidence in their resilience and a call for better policies, India's textile industry is gearing up to overcome global trade challenges and continue its growth.