Africa's Mineral Leverage Amid US Trade Policies

Africa possesses substantial reserves of minerals critical to global industries, including the United States economy. During the Trump administration, Section 232 tariffs were imposed on steel and aluminium imports globally, impacting several African exporters such as South Africa. This raises the question: could African nations leverage their mineral exports to counter such US trade policies? A balanced analysis reveals significant complexity.

The Case for Potential Leverage:

- Criticality and Concentration: Minerals such as cobalt, platinum group metals (PGMs), and manganese are not only essential for advanced manufacturing (aerospace, defence, EVs, electronics) but also highly concentrated in specific African countries. The DRC dominates cobalt; South Africa dominates PGMs and chromite. This creates potential supply chokepoints.
- Limited Short-Term Substitutes: For many applications (eg, cobalt in specific battery chemistries, PGMs in catalysts), viable substitutes are either non-existent, significantly less efficient, or much more expensive in the near-to-medium term. Developing new sources takes years.
- Disruption Impact: Any significant disruption or deliberate restriction of these mineral flows could cause substantial price volatility and supply chain bottlenecks for US industries, potentially impacting economic growth and strategic sectors.

Significant Constraints on Leverage:

- Dispersed Interests: Africa is not a single actor. Mineral wealth is spread across numerous countries with differing political agendas, economic priorities, and relationships with the US. Achieving coordinated action across the continent on trade policy, especially targeting the US, is highly improbable. The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) is nascent and focuses on intra-African trade.
- Mutual Dependence: Many African economies are heavily reliant on mineral export revenues. Restricting exports to the US (a major market) could inflict severe economic damage on the exporting countries themselves, potentially destabilising economies and governments. This creates a significant disincentive.
- US Mitigation Strategies: The US is acutely aware of these supply risks. Responses could include:
- Increased Domestic Production/Recycling: Incentivising mining within the US or allied nations (though challenging and slow).
- Stockpiling: Using the National Defense Stockpile.
- Allied Sourcing: Strengthening supply chains with friendly nations (e.g., Australia for some minerals).
- Technological Innovation: Accelerating research into alternative materials or battery chemistries (e.g., cobalt-free batteries).
- Financial/Political Pressure: Utilising tools like sanctions or leveraging international financial institutions.
- AGOA Factor: The African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) grants many Sub-Saharan African countries preferential tariff access to the US market for non-mineral exports (textiles, agriculture, etc.). Threatening mineral exports could jeopardise these valuable benefits.
- Specificity of Tariffs: The Trump-era tariffs targeted specific products (steel, aluminium), not the raw minerals themselves. While tariffs hurt African aluminium exporters (like South Africa) processing bauxite, the primary bauxite producers (eg, Guinea) were less directly impacted. Leveraging unrelated minerals (like cobalt) against aluminium tariffs would be an indirect and legally/politically complex strategy.

A Balanced Perspective:

While Africa holds globally significant reserves of minerals critical to the US economy, the notion of the continent wielding this as a unified, effective bargaining chip against specific US tariffs like those imposed under Trump faces substantial hurdles.

The concentration of certain minerals provides theoretical leverage points. However, the fragmentation of African nations, their own deep economic dependence on mineral exports, the existence of mechanisms like AGOA, and the US's capacity to pursue mitigation strategies significantly weaken the practical ability to translate this mineral wealth into tangible trade concessions on unrelated tariffs.

Attempting aggressive leverage could easily backfire, harming African economies more than the US in the short-to-medium term, while accelerating US efforts to reduce dependence on African minerals in the long term – an outcome contrary to Africa's interests in sustained mineral revenue.

A More Pragmatic Path:

Rather than confrontation, the more viable strategy for African mineral-rich nations lies in:

- Value Addition: Processing minerals domestically before export (e.g., refining cobalt, manufacturing battery precursors) to capture more economic benefit and create jobs.
- Stable Investment Frameworks: Attracting responsible investment for exploration and mining through predictable, transparent regulations and reduced political risk.
- Strategic Partnerships: Negotiating mutually beneficial, long-term supply agreements with consumer nations and companies, potentially linked to infrastructure development or technology transfer, rather than reacting to specific tariffs.
- Intra-African Coordination (where possible): Collaborating on policies like environmental standards or local beneficiation goals to strengthen their collective position within global value chains.

Conclusion:

Africa's mineral wealth grants it inherent economic significance, particularly concerning specific critical minerals. However, translating this into leverage against US trade policies like the Trump tariffs is fraught with practical difficulties and significant risks for African economies. The path to maximising Africa's benefit from its resources more likely lies in internal development, value addition, and fostering stable, mutually beneficial partnerships, rather than in attempting short-term, high-stakes leverage that could undermine long-term economic stability and growth. The relationship remains one of complex interdependence, not one where Africa holds a simple, decisive upper hand.

https://bit.ly/46YDznQ