US-Africa Policy Working Group Meeting Discusses Crisis in the Congo and Connections to International Minerals Trade
By Alana Matthew
On March 11, 2025, Rep. Ilhan Omar, Chair of the U.S.-Africa Policy Working Group, convened its inaugural meeting of the 119th Congress, bringing together members of Congress and leading experts to address the escalating human rights and humanitarian crises in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).
For the last few months, fighting between Congolese security forces and militant groups led by the Rwanda-backed M23 has been escalating rapidly, culminating in M23’s capture of the city of Goma. The DRC estimates that over 2,000 were killed in the attack on Goma, with 700,000 internally displaced, according to the United Nations. Attacks on civilians and systematic use of sexual violence are well documented. Experts agree a major motivating factor for the violent land-grab is control of the DRC’s valuable mineral resources, including cobalt, copper, and coltan.
Among the witnesses invited to the Working Group meeting was Global Trade Watch Research Director Iza Camarillo, who connected the ongoing violence to poverty and resource scarcity, exacerbated by neocolonial trade patterns. She presented findings from “The Deadly Cost of Cobalt Mining in the Congo,” a recent report co-authored by Public Citizen and Friends of the Congo, which examines how existing trade rules and proposed mineral agreements risk perpetuating instability in the DRC and other resource-rich countries in the Global South.
With the Trump administration reportedly considering a minerals-for-security agreement with the DRC, similar to the one discussed with Ukraine, U.S. policymakers should be aware of the history of such agreements inhibiting the ability of resource-rich countries to develop and harness the value of their own resources.
Read Camarillo’s full remarks to the U.S.-Africa Policy Working Group:
It is a privilege to address you today on a matter that touches the very core of global trade, international investment, and the ethics of resource extraction. The three have deep roots embedded in centuries of exploitation and injustice.
I’m here today to present the findings of a recent report that I wrote in collaboration with Friends of the Congo and explain the risks of a potential critical minerals trade agreement with the DRC.
This conversation couldn’t be more timely, as last week it was reported that the DRC is seeking an arrangement with the U.S. similar to the one discussed with Ukraine – granting exclusive rights to critical minerals in exchange for security guarantees, piquing the Trump administration’s interest.
On the surface, this proposal may appear to be an opportunity for mutually beneficial cooperation. However, we must acknowledge that this offer reflects a broader pattern of neocolonial dependency, where resource-rich nations like the DRC are compelled to trade their natural wealth for security or military support from powerful countries — countries that, in many cases, have benefited from the exploitation of those resources.
The DRC sits upon one of the world’s most valuable natural resource reserves, home to an estimated 24 trillion dollars worth of minerals. It is the world’s largest supplier of cobalt and holds vast deposits of other critical minerals powering the renewable energy transition and modern technology.
Yet, despite this mineral wealth, the DRC remains one of the poorest countries in the world, with more than 70% of its population living on less than $3 a day. While wealth generated by mining often flows out of the country, enriching foreign investors, it leaves the people of the DRC marginalized.
This paradox is not accidental. The roots of this exploitation lie deep within the colonial history of the DRC. It is the legacy of centuries of predatory extraction — a cycle that has perpetuated poverty, violence, and instability.
The scramble for resources has given rise to armed groups, whose primary motivation is control of mining areas. These groups fund their operations through illicit mineral trade that destabilizes not only the DRC but the entire region.
A central question surrounding cobalt mining is: who truly benefits from these valuable minerals?
African countries remain largely trapped at a low level in transition mineral value chains, primarily focused on raw mineral extraction rather than processing and manufacturing in-demand technologies. Consequently, the wealth generated from these minerals does not significantly enrich these nations. Instead, profits are enjoyed elsewhere while African nations bear the brunt of hazardous extraction practices.
The clean energy transition presents an opportunity for the DRC to increase job creation and promote sustainable development. However, despite the continent’s vast mineral wealth, persistent poverty and inequality underscore the need for structural change. A key factor limiting the DRC’s financial gain from cobalt extraction is the minimal processing prior to export.
To maximize the benefits of its cobalt reserves, the DRC could prioritize adding value within its borders before exporting. Value addition occurs mainly during the processing phase, where cobalt is smelted and refined into a purer form, and during manufacturing, where it is transformed into finished products such as lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicles.
Currently, a vast majority of Africa’s critical minerals are exported to manufacturing industries outside the continent, with only 2% of the continent’s energy transition minerals exports going to other African countries. According to a report by Publish What You Pay, implementing appropriate policies to increase domestic processing of clean energy technologies could boost Africa’s GDP by at least $24 billion and create 2.3 million jobs.
Yet, the World Trade Organization (WTO) and free trade agreements (FTAs) bar many policy tools to promote value addition. One significant exception is the use of “export restrictions,” usually in the form of taxes on exported goods. These restrictions are one of the few tools resource-rich countries like the DRC can use to exert greater control over their resources and move up the value chain.
However, some trade agreements and mineral pacts, like the one the U.S. signed with Japan in 2023, close off that last remaining pathway to value addition. With export restrictions limited or prohibited, corporations from resource-hungry countries can access low-cost raw materials, while resource-rich countries like the DRC are prevented from leveraging their resources to develop domestic industries.
This dynamic perpetuates a cycle of dependence and exploitation, where the majority of the value generated from cobalt mining is extracted by external entities, leaving local communities to shoulder the environmental and human rights costs.
The impact of extractive practices on local communities and the environment in the DRC is both devastating and unsustainable. Communities living near mining sites are exposed to unregulated working conditions, where they often work in dangerous, life-threatening environments. Child labor is prevalent, and many workers are subjected to grueling hours for little pay—if any. These practices violate basic human rights, including the right to a safe working environment, fair wages, and access to social services.
Union busting is also widespread in the DRC, according to the State Department’s 2023 Country Report on Human Rights Practices. “Government and employers did not respect the right of freedom of association and collective bargaining, and penalties were rarely applied against violators,” the report notes, “Anti-union discrimination was widespread, particularly in foreign-owned companies.”
In addition to the human toll, the environmental damage caused by mining is catastrophic. Deforestation, water pollution, and soil degradation are rampant as multinational companies use toxic chemicals like cyanide and mercury in the extraction process. Rivers become contaminated, ecosystems are destroyed, and communities that rely on these resources for their livelihoods are left to contend with the aftermath. This environmental degradation only exacerbates the cycle of poverty, as the very land and water resources that sustain local populations are poisoned, making it harder for them to grow food, drink clean water, or support sustainable livelihoods.
If the U.S. begins negotiations on mineral agreements with the DRC, we should resist any imperialist efforts to restrict the DRC’s options for export restrictions or other development and value-addition policies.
During the colonial rule of Belgium, the DRC’s wealth was extracted at the cost of countless lives. Yet, despite gaining its independence, the asymmetrical dynamic of colonial exploitation continues in the DRC today.
The U.S. has contributed to this asymmetry, albeit in different ways. After the colonies gained their independence from Western powers, the former colonizers concocted a system to continue exerting their influence on the newly independent nations and extracting resources in a perfectly legal way.
The Investor-State Dispute Settlement system, better known as ISDS, is embedded within free trade agreements and bilateral investment treaties. ISDS was presented as an opportunity for former colonies to develop their economies by attracting foreign direct investment.
Facing the poverty, power vacuum, and desperation that all war-torn countries experience after years of fighting for their independence, foreign investment seemed like a gift but countries in the Global South have come to learn that the reality is far more insidious.
ISDS grants foreign corporations unprecedented power to sue sovereign governments in private tribunals, circumventing domestic courts, if they perceive that regulatory changes or new laws—even those aimed at protecting labor, the environment, or human rights—could negatively impact their profits.
Created in the 1960s as a safeguard for Western investments in newly independent states, ISDS was designed to protect foreign capital from nationalization or expropriation under the pretext of attracting foreign direct investment to Global South countries. However, in practice, ISDS has become a tool of exploitation, prioritizing corporate interests over public welfare.
ISDS provisions were first introduced in African trade and investment treaties during the post-colonial era, and since then, hundreds of agreements signed by African nations have incorporated these mechanisms. The U.S. and the DRC have a longstanding Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) that grants ISDS protections to U.S. investors operating in the DRC.
Since 1993, African governments have faced 171 ISDS claims, with a significant uptick in recent years. The DRC has been a frequent target, resulting in compensatory payments to foreign investors totaling approximately $22 million, which ultimately falls on taxpayers.
Mining companies have used ISDS to challenge the government’s efforts to protect the health and safety of affected communities and the environment. Vulnerable populations are disproportionately affected, as their voices are excluded from meaningful participation in arbitral proceedings.
Moreover, when companies inflict environmental harm, ISDS tribunals may prioritize compensation for polluters rather than holding them accountable, thereby undermining governmental efforts to protect natural resources. In cobalt mining, this environmental damage poses serious risks to local communities. If the DRC seeks to implement domestic policies and regulations to improve mining practices, ISDS provisions in the U.S.-Congo BIT could trigger costly legal disputes, diverting taxpayer dollars and hindering progress. Any new obligations agreed to in a possible security-for-minerals agreement between the US and DRC could also be enforceable through the existing ISDS agreement.
Facing the poverty, power vacuum, and desperation that all war-torn countries experience after years of fighting for their independence, foreign investment seemed like a blessing.
But countries in the Global South have come to learn that the reality is far more insidious. By allowing corporations to sue governments for enacting laws or policies that impact foreign investment, ISDS has undermined the government’s ability to enact policies that could protect their environment or address human rights abuses.
ISDS is just one example of how the global trade system — designed in the interests of powerful nations and corporations — often works against the sovereignty and dignity of resource-rich but vulnerable countries like the DRC.
International actors must shift from exploitative relationships to partnerships based on long-term development. The unfair global trade rules found in the WTO, FTAs, and BITs keep countries like the DRC trapped in low-value resource extraction supply chains with the inability to develop manufacturing and profit from their minerals.
Removing these global trade barriers is an essential step for the DRC to develop a more sustainable and inclusive economy.
And new trade agreements that are developed must include strong and enforceable standards. One example is the “Rapid Response Mechanism” embedded in the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. If applied to the Congolese context, such a tool would enable workers who experience denial of internationally recognized labor rights to report their conditions, with the specific facility then facing consequences, eventually leading up to resources from that facility being barred entry to the U.S. This puts the onus of compliance on the companies that own facilities rather than on the entire industry or country, as broader tariffs or sanctions would do.
Additionally, a collection of 40 leading environmental, faith, and Indigenous rights organizations have issued recommendations for the terms the U.S. should include in minerals trade agreements — including respect for governments’ ability to enact tax and royalty policies designed to ensure that communities most affected by critical minerals operations are receiving direct financial benefits.
Such changes are essential if we are to rebuild the global trade system so it no longer empowers foreign countries and corporations to dictate the terms of extraction, benefitting the few at the expense of the many.