Mineral-rich African states find themselves at the junction of a global economic transformation, with abundant reserves of the critical minerals essential to powering the green transition, artificial intelligence (AI) and advanced military technology. They will seek to avoid being in the crosshairs of rising geopolitical tensions as the scramble for these minerals intensifies, while maximising investments in processing capacities and the wider economy.

The US National Security Strategy unveiled in December 2025 marked a sea-change in the US administration’s policies on Africa, framing the continent – in three short paragraphs, at the end of the 29-page document – as an arena for competition with China over access to critical minerals.

“The key change going forward with the new Trump strategy will be a greater focus on critical mineral supply chains, which means quite a significant amount of jostling in old mineral-rich countries like the Democratic Republic of the Congo [DRC], South Africa and Zambia”, says NAI researcher Patience Mususa.

“But I think the perspective of several African countries is that they don’t want to be caught in the crosshairs of this geopolitical competition.”

The new security strategy came on the heels of the withdrawal of United States Agency for International Development funding, worth US$12 billion to the continent in 2024, and the introduction of new trade tariffs, including a crippling 30 percent tariff imposed on certain goods from mineral-rich South Africa. This, Mususa says, has contributed to a certain amount of wariness towards the US and speculation over the impact it will have on African countries’ mineral policies.

Trust and policy consistency

“There are trust and policy consistency issues. You say you want to trade in commodities and build up supply chains but then you’re imposing tariffs”, explains Mususa.

“I think the big challenge the current US administration will have from an African perspective is trust.”

That trust was severely undermined in Zambia – a key source of copper and cobalt – when the US delayed a US$ 1.5 billion health aid package in December 2025, linking the funds to access to minerals and other resources. Similar claims of US pressure have been widely reported in other African countries.

“What’s missing from the US approach at the moment is the sense that there is any dialogue, which is what African countries have with other investors like China. African countries know that there is a power differential with China, but there is a sense that they can negotiate”, says Mususa.

The highly transactional, even punitive, US approach is unlikely to pay significant dividends, according to Mususa, as long as incentives to partner with China – and increasingly Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States – outweigh US offerings.

Societal benefits

Resource-rich African countries provide the minerals needed for the green transition and advanced technologies (they hold 30 percent of the world’s estimated reserves), but their economies have long been based on extraction, with multinational firms reaping the bulk of the profits. Local communities often bear the social and environmental costs of mining but see little of the benefits.

“There is a strong interest in seeing new mines come into production because there is big global demand. But in many mining communities, at least the ones where I have done fieldwork, they just don’t see the point of more mining if it does not come with societal benefits”, says Mususa, whose research focuses on mining and human settlement in Zambia and southern Africa.

Across the continent, investment conditions are increasingly being tied to local processing, the creation of industrial parks, power, rail and port infrastructure, and workforce development, as African countries demand better revenue-sharing arrangements from multinational firms. In that sense, the new US strategy says the right things, emphasising critical mineral development and energy as investment opportunities. The US is already investing, but not anywhere near the scale of China, says Mususa.

“If the US wants to compete with China, and increasingly also the Middle East, they will need to make significant investments in energy and other sectors. The most competitive partners are the ones coming with additional investments, alongside mining activities, that link in much more to what the communities and society want.”

She cites several examples where China has invested for some time in large-scale energy projects that have catalysed growth in related sectors, such as manufacturing facilities for power transformers, investments in transport and logistics, and in phosphate mining for fertiliser production, which feeds into local agricultural economies.

Climbing the value chain

China also dominates mineral processing and imports the majority of minerals in raw form. Increasing domestic processing is a high priority for African states – in line with the African Mining Vision, an African Union policy framework for moving from exporting raw materials to creating more equitable, inclusive and sustainable mining sectors. Therefore, shifting some of this processing capacity away from China is key.

Across the continent there are plans to set up new refineries to process minerals. Namibia and Zimbabwe have introduced legislation to cover domestic processing of lithium, while South Africa is putting its platinum group minerals to work in green energy transition projects. Electric vehicle assembly is also taking off in several countries, including Kenya and Nigeria.

There are also increasing moves to create regional value chains. Africa’s leading cobalt and copper producers, DRC and Zambia, are partnering to establish a battery industry, with support from the African Minerals Development Centre, established in 2013 to drive the African Mining Vision.

Opportunities for Europe

To remain competitive, foreign investors should engage more with these regional integration efforts, says Mususa.

Europe in particular has a strategic interest in supporting Africa-based processing and better regional integration of value chains, given its proximity to the continent and dependence on global supply chains for critical minerals.

Mususa also sees a potential win-win if Europe negotiates directly with state mining corporations in African countries that also want to see a share of commodities going into their domestic economies to catalyse industry.

“Nordic and European countries can help strengthen the capacity of African states in mineral stewardship and improve their participation in strategic mineral value chains. This would include support to boost the commercial competitiveness of African state-owned mining corporates and their stake in the sector”, she argues.

“These initiatives could foster more stable, equitable and predictable partnerships with European nations, catalyse African development and provide security of supply for European and Nordic green transition, AI and defence industries”, Mususa concludes.

TEXT: Tom Sullivan