- Opposition figures and church leaders in Congo are questioning a proposed minerals partnership with the United States.
- The government says the deal will attract investment and follow national law, while critics warn it could undermine sovereignty.
- The debate comes as Congo’s mineral wealth sits at the centre of growing U.S.-China competition.
OPPOSITION figures, church leaders and a rebel coalition in the Democratic Republic of Congo are challenging a proposed minerals partnership with the United States, arguing it risks undermining sovereignty and lacks transparency.
President Felix Tshisekedi is advocating for closer ties with the U.S. to draw investment into Congo’s rich deposits of cobalt, copper, lithium, and coltan, all while seeking assistance to stabilise the conflict-ridden eastern provinces.
While addressing members of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington, Tshisekedi stated, “We are open for business, and we are serious about doing business the right way.” He viewed this initiative as a step towards formalising mineral supply chains and enhancing governance.
As the world’s leading cobalt producer and a significant copper supplier, Congo plays a crucial role in global battery and renewable energy supply chains. Western nations are eager to lessen their dependence on China, which currently dominates mineral processing and has substantial investments in Congolese mines.
A group of Congolese lawyers and human rights activists has launched a legal challenge, saying that the proposed partnership jeopardises national interests.
“We are assuming our responsibility as Congolese citizens to protect the sovereignty of our country and preserve our heritage for future generations,” said lawyer Jean-Marie Kalonji in a statement to The Associated Press.
The Catholic Church, a significant influence in Congo’s political scene, has also voiced its concerns. Archbishop Fulgence Muteba, who leads the national bishops’ conference, compared the proposal to “selling off the minerals of an entire nation to save a regime or a political system.”
“This clearly amounts to sacrificing the development of the population and confiscating the happiness of future generations,” Muteba stated.
Government officials maintain that the agreement is still under discussion and will comply with national law. Deputy Prime Minister and Economy Minister Daniel Mukoko Samba told Reuters that the partnership will be presented to parliament for approval.
“We have a solid majority in parliament, so we’re confident that we will secure the parliament’s approval,” Mukoko Samba said.
Last month, Reuters reported that Congo had provided Washington with a shortlist of state-owned mineral assets for potential U.S. investment, which includes projects in manganese, copper-cobalt, gold, and lithium. Two senior Congolese officials said that a joint committee would handle negotiations if the partnership progressed.
Security concerns have fueled criticism from opponents, especially in eastern provinces where armed groups dominate areas close to mineral-rich regions.
Corneille Nangaa, leader of the Alliance Fleuve Congo (AFC), which includes the M23 rebel group, voiced his disapproval. “The Americans may have signed it, but they should realise they are dealing with an illegitimate and corrupt regime,” Nangaa said in Goma.
The presidency dismissed these allegations, asserting that the partnership “fully falls within the constitutional prerogatives” of the elected government. It labeled any speculation about legal uncertainty as “speculative.”
Analysts suggest that this debate highlights the increasing geopolitical rivalry over essential minerals.
“The competition between China and the United States for access to and control of strategic minerals will intensify significantly on Congolese soil,” noted Josaphat Musamba, a doctoral researcher at Ghent University.
Congo’s economy relies heavily on mineral exports for its foreign currency, and officials believe that diversifying investments could enhance oversight and boost tax revenues. However, critics argue that without stronger institutions and better security, new agreements may just repeat past mistakes, leaving local communities with minimal benefits.
In the coming months, parliamentary debate is anticipated, which will serve as a political test for the government’s minerals strategy.
