Resource competition has long underpinned international relations. However, it seems to be taking center stage again, much like the 19th-century scramble for Africa or Western grabs for Middle Eastern oil in the past century.
As demand rises for the critical minerals that power the industries of the future, many countries are rushing to gain an edge. The US recently struck a high-profile minerals deal with Ukraine, which, for its part, wants to prevent a further hemorrhaging of US support for its war with Russia. US President Donald Trump has also talked of acquiring Greenland partly because of its potential mineral wealth, while his administration is negotiating deals with other mineral-rich countries, such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Moreover, natural resources are increasingly being wielded as a foreign policy weapon. In 2022, after Europe sanctioned Russia for its invasion of Ukraine, the Kremlin scaled back gas exports to the continent. And in the past few months, China has restricted exports of rare earth elements as part of its trade war with the US, while India has suspended the Indus Water Treaty, a water-sharing agreement with Pakistan, following an attack on Hindu tourists in Kashmir. The conflict between Israel and Iran has also raised concerns among Israel’s Western allies that Iran could disrupt shipments of oil and gas from the Persian Gulf.
Controls of oil and gas flows has long shaped geopolitics, but critical minerals have lately taken on new importance, because escalating geopolitical tensions are accelerating efforts to bolster defense capabilities and shifting the artificial intelligence race into high gear, all while the global clean energy transition continues apace. Constructing new missiles, data centers and electricity grids requires enormous amounts of metals and minerals, such as copper, cobalt, lithium and nickel. In an increasingly divided world where China dominates the refining and processing of many of these critical minerals, many countries understandably fear losing access to them.
Looking ahead, climate change seems certain to intensify disputes over resources, particularly water and food supplies. For example, if shifting weather patterns further reduce arable land in vulnerable regions, affected countries might act assertively to protect grain export routes or to maintain access to international riparian systems. However, it makes little sense for countries to adopt a muscular, take-no-prisoners approach to resource diplomacy. History has shown that success requires thoughtful, patient and tempered tactics.
For starters, resource diplomacy takes careful long-term planning. China’s critical mineral domination was not achieved overnight; it is the result of strategic foresight. Decades ago, the Chinese government adopted a forward-looking industrial policy and began investing in mining projects abroad and forging alliances with resource-rich countries. By contrast, many Western governments, having only recently woke up to the dangers of dependency on other countries for critical minerals, have made little headway in securing their own supply chains for these raw materials, despite introducing multiple initiatives to achieve this goal.
European governments were similarly shortsighted when they allowed themselves to become dependent on Russian gas in the years prior to the Ukraine war. As the continent learned in 2022, scrambling to diversify suppliers during or after a crisis can be highly costly and disruptive.
Moreover, countries must focus less on concluding impressive sounding deals, and more on getting the boring details right. Understanding the technical and economic aspects of resource extraction and processing would determine whether these agreements achieve their long-term aims.
For example, mining executives have criticized the US-Ukraine resources deal for exaggerating the value of the country’s critical minerals and the potential for attracting private investment to exploit them. Likewise, US officials might be overestimating the commercial viability of the minerals under Greenland’s ice. In both cases, while Trump’s maneuvers have certainly garnered attention, they might do little to bolster US mineral security.
Of course, countries should not exert too much control over others’ resources, at least not without ensuring significant local benefits. Otherwise, they risk generating resentment and fueling a backlash. In the 1960s and 1970s, Western oil firms were booted out of much of the Middle East, because host governments felt they were getting too little in return. Today, Western mining firms are being squeezed in some parts of Africa and Latin America, owing to similar local perceptions. While Chinese mining firms have gained ground in Africa by portraying themselves as more supportive of local development, they, too, are sometimes tarred with the same neo-colonialist brush. Securing resources without sowing suspicion is easier said than done.
Finally, resource-rich countries should recognize that weaponizing their exports might backfire: importers might shift away from the relevant commodity or retaliate in other ways. A striking historical example is the 1973 Arab oil embargo. While this delivered the intended short-term result — inflicting economic pain on Western countries — it also impelled those countries to develop new oil fields outside the Arab world, such as in Alaska and the North Sea.
In the same vein, Russia’s decision to cut gas flows to Europe caused initial pain, but ended up devastating a once-lucrative export market, which has now secured alternative energy supplies. More countries are at risk of making the same mistake. India’s suspension of the Indus Water Treaty has raised fears that China, Pakistan’s ally, might weaponize the waterways under its control that flow to India. Likewise, in tightening global exports of its rare earths, China risks accelerating moves to open up rare earth mining and processing facilities elsewhere in the world.
When it comes to securing access to natural resources or using them as geopolitical tools, headline-grabbing moves rarely produce the desired outcome, especially over the long term. Instead, effective resource diplomacy requires sensitivity, expertise, foresight and balance — qualities that, unfortunately, are not prevalent among today’s political leaders.
Daniel Litvin, visiting senior fellow at the Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics, is the founder and CEO of Resource Resolutions and the author of Empires of Profit: Commerce, Conquest and Corporate Responsibility.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
The war between Israel and Iran offers far-reaching strategic lessons, not only for the Middle East, but also for East Asia, particularly Taiwan. As tensions rise across both regions, the behavior of global powers, especially the US under the US President Donald Trump, signals how alliances, deterrence and rapid military mobilization could shape the outcomes of future conflicts. For Taiwan, facing increasing pressure and aggression from China, these lessons are both urgent and actionable. One of the most notable features of the Israel-Iran war was the prompt and decisive intervention of the US. Although the Trump administration is often portrayed as
RSS