• A new report warns that Africa’s barter deals trading minerals for security risk long-term sovereignty and revenues.

• The study highlights a recent U.S.-brokered peace deal between DR Congo and Rwanda as a key example.

• Researchers urge African governments to strengthen institutions and demand transparency in mining agreements.

Barter-style deals in which African countries trade mineral resources for security assurances from foreign powers may offer short-term stability but carry serious long-term risks to national sovereignty and budget revenues, according to a new report released on July 21, 2025.

The report, titled “Africa’s minerals are being bartered for security: why it’s a bad idea”, was written by South African researchers Hanri Mostert of the University of Cape Town and Tracy-Lynn Field of the University of the Witwatersrand. It highlights growing concerns over deals where natural resources are exchanged for vague promises of security support from global powers.

One recent example is the June 27 peace agreement signed by the Democratic Republic of Congo (DR Congo) and Rwanda under the mediation of the U.S. administration. The deal is meant to end violent conflict in the region involving both state and non-state actors, while encouraging economic integration.

In return, the United States will gain privileged access to the region’s strategic minerals and open the door for billions of dollars in investments. The area is rich in tantalum, cobalt, copper, gold, and lithium.

But the report notes that the promised peace heavily depends on U.S. access to these critical minerals, while the security commitments remain “vaguely formulated.” The agreement sets up a joint security coordination committee with representatives from the African Union, Qatar, and the United States. This body will handle complaints and resolve disputes between DR Congo and Rwanda, but it does not impose any concrete security obligations on Washington.

DR Congo and Rwanda have a long history of tension and armed conflict dating back to the First (1996–1997) and Second (1998–2003) Congo Wars. These tensions are fueled by political and ethnic issues, but also by competition over the country’s vast mineral wealth.

The report points out that tin, tantalum, tungsten, and gold—often referred to as 3TG minerals—have long funded armed conflicts in eastern DR Congo. Government forces and around 130 armed groups fight over control of lucrative mining areas. Several United Nations-linked reports and NGO investigations have accused neighboring countries, particularly Rwanda and Uganda, of backing illegal extraction of these minerals.

According to the report published in The Conversation, resource-for-security deals are part of a broader trend that started in the early 2000s with “minerals-for-infrastructure” agreements. In those earlier deals, foreign countries would build roads, ports, airports, or hospitals in exchange for mining rights or access to natural resources.

However, the authors stress that these arrangements have not helped African nations fully benefit from their mineral wealth. Countries such as Angola, DR Congo, and the Central African Republic, which have signed such deals with China and Russia, have seen little return. The newer “resources-for-security” agreements are even more opaque and complicated than the older infrastructure deals, the researchers warn.

These types of deals may bring short-term gains, such as funding or international visibility, but their long-term impacts are often negative. One major risk is the erosion of sovereign control over natural resources.

This loss of control can happen in several ways. Some agreements include clauses that block future legal reforms, limiting the country’s power to change its mining laws. Others fix the price of minerals for many years, preventing governments from benefiting if global commodity prices rise.

Another concern is that disputes are often settled by international arbitration bodies, bypassing local courts. In many cases, loans tied to such deals are guaranteed by mining revenues, which restricts exports and weakens sovereign control over public budgets.

The deals also create a fragmented structure of responsibility, involving multiple ministries such as Defense, Mining, Trade, and Finance. This lack of coordination makes oversight difficult and often allows powerful insiders to influence agreements for personal gain.

In addition, mining operations tied to security arrangements can worsen human rights abuses and environmental damage, especially when there is no strong regulatory oversight.

To address these challenges, the report calls on African countries to strengthen their legal and institutional frameworks, push for local value creation, demand transparency and parliamentary oversight of mining contracts, and reject any agreements that bypass human rights, environmental standards, or national sovereignty.

Walid Kéfi