Spikerama
Regular
Of course you can mate. We all know we can cry and exasperate and post as many memes as we like if it makes us feel better. I'm just expressing an opinion, that's all.
AVZ Discussion 2022
- Thread starter GazDix
- Start date
Of course you can mate. We all know we can cry and exasperate and post as many memes as we like if it makes us feel better. I'm just expressing an opinion, that's all.
Samus
Top 20
Spikerama
Regular
Nah, I prefer words. I did love the Young Ones though.
Rechnerhand
Regular
The Guardian view on Donald Trump’s Congo deal: mineral riches for protection
Faced with regional chaos and shrinking options, Kinshasa seeks terms of trade that echo the old extractive order in modern disguise
The vilest scramble for loot that has ever disfigured the history of human conscience” is how Joseph Conrad described colonial-era concessions granted to private companies for Congo’s natural resources in Heart of Darkness. Under Donald Trump, that scramble may be back. If news reports are right, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is offering the US a blunt deal: minerals for military help – a slice of sovereignty traded for a shot at stability.
The concern is this isn’t a return, it’s a sequel. For three decades, Washington supported Joseph-Désiré Mobutu, a cold war ally and brutal dictator who looted the Congo until his 1997 fall. That history of power politics still casts a long shadow. The Trump administration openly favours muscle over diplomacy. Fadhel Kaboub, an associate professor of economics at Denison University, notes that Biden-era talk of partnering for clean energy has been shelved, with the US driven less by green goals than by copper and cobalt for missiles and microchips.
The logic is bleak but clear. Since 1996, the Congo’s wars have drawn in foreign armies and proxies, leaving over 5.5 million dead. The DRC faces a worsening security crisis driven by armed groups like M23, allegedly backed by Rwanda and other regional powers. Western governments lament the violence, but focus on securing access to minerals vital to their industries. Kinshasa, seeing appeals to multilateral justice achieve little, has turned to dealmaking. If dependency is inevitable, it might as well be leveraged.
The DRC’s leadership is not naive. They know Mr Trump sees Africa not as a partner but as a warehouse of strategic materials, and Ukraine as proof that he will turn weakness into American gain. They know China won’t send troops – citing non-interference – even as its firms dominate Congolese mining. With Russia and Gulf states offering assistance, Kinshasa pushes for US bases to guard “strategic resources” – like cobalt, 70% of which comes from the DRC and is essential to smartphones and Nato’s defence industry. Congo may want boots; Washington prefers business.
The proposed deal with the US seems desperate and strategic: security support in exchange for mining rights. Don’t call it protection money. After Mr Trump’s Africa envoy signalled a deal was coming, the DRC repatriated three Americans tied to a failed coup, and a tin mine, which is controlled by US investors, began reopening as M23 rebels pulled back – a fragile win in a volatile landscape. Kinshasa hopes either to have Washington broker a peace that forces the rebels into retreat or to gain the firepower to crush them outright.
It might also unlock IMF funding and widen access to western capital markets. But at what cost? The likeliest outcome is that the DRC will receive just enough to remain dependent. Its mineral sector will be dominated by foreign firms, its fiscal autonomy eroded by conditional loans and its economy locked into the old pattern of subservience – supplier of cheap inputs, consumer of expensive outputs.
Calling this colonialism isn’t quite right. Empires ruled by decree, with no pretence of consent. Today’s coercion is more subtle: a sovereign state cornered, at a weak moment, into accepting colonial-style terms without soldiers or flags. The tools are different – security deals, trade exemptions, private investment. But the logic is familiar. The irony is that this is being pursued voluntarily by a government with few alternatives. What will history say about that?
Faced with regional chaos and shrinking options, Kinshasa seeks terms of trade that echo the old extractive order in modern disguise
The vilest scramble for loot that has ever disfigured the history of human conscience” is how Joseph Conrad described colonial-era concessions granted to private companies for Congo’s natural resources in Heart of Darkness. Under Donald Trump, that scramble may be back. If news reports are right, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is offering the US a blunt deal: minerals for military help – a slice of sovereignty traded for a shot at stability.
The concern is this isn’t a return, it’s a sequel. For three decades, Washington supported Joseph-Désiré Mobutu, a cold war ally and brutal dictator who looted the Congo until his 1997 fall. That history of power politics still casts a long shadow. The Trump administration openly favours muscle over diplomacy. Fadhel Kaboub, an associate professor of economics at Denison University, notes that Biden-era talk of partnering for clean energy has been shelved, with the US driven less by green goals than by copper and cobalt for missiles and microchips.
The logic is bleak but clear. Since 1996, the Congo’s wars have drawn in foreign armies and proxies, leaving over 5.5 million dead. The DRC faces a worsening security crisis driven by armed groups like M23, allegedly backed by Rwanda and other regional powers. Western governments lament the violence, but focus on securing access to minerals vital to their industries. Kinshasa, seeing appeals to multilateral justice achieve little, has turned to dealmaking. If dependency is inevitable, it might as well be leveraged.
The DRC’s leadership is not naive. They know Mr Trump sees Africa not as a partner but as a warehouse of strategic materials, and Ukraine as proof that he will turn weakness into American gain. They know China won’t send troops – citing non-interference – even as its firms dominate Congolese mining. With Russia and Gulf states offering assistance, Kinshasa pushes for US bases to guard “strategic resources” – like cobalt, 70% of which comes from the DRC and is essential to smartphones and Nato’s defence industry. Congo may want boots; Washington prefers business.
The proposed deal with the US seems desperate and strategic: security support in exchange for mining rights. Don’t call it protection money. After Mr Trump’s Africa envoy signalled a deal was coming, the DRC repatriated three Americans tied to a failed coup, and a tin mine, which is controlled by US investors, began reopening as M23 rebels pulled back – a fragile win in a volatile landscape. Kinshasa hopes either to have Washington broker a peace that forces the rebels into retreat or to gain the firepower to crush them outright.
It might also unlock IMF funding and widen access to western capital markets. But at what cost? The likeliest outcome is that the DRC will receive just enough to remain dependent. Its mineral sector will be dominated by foreign firms, its fiscal autonomy eroded by conditional loans and its economy locked into the old pattern of subservience – supplier of cheap inputs, consumer of expensive outputs.
Calling this colonialism isn’t quite right. Empires ruled by decree, with no pretence of consent. Today’s coercion is more subtle: a sovereign state cornered, at a weak moment, into accepting colonial-style terms without soldiers or flags. The tools are different – security deals, trade exemptions, private investment. But the logic is familiar. The irony is that this is being pursued voluntarily by a government with few alternatives. What will history say about that?
Carlos Danger
Top 20
I'm aware. Doesn't mean Zijin are a party to the ICSID case. In fact the only connection Zijin have to the ICSID case is through their joint venture Manono Lithium that the ICSID refer to as a 'third party to the proceedings' if you don't know...
Carlos Danger
Top 20
Cominiere are a 25% shareholder of Dathcom therefore are a party to the ICSID proceedings as a claimant
Samus
Top 20
Winenut
Go AVZ!
Getting Cominiere out of your life is just about akin to trying to rid yourself of herpes or the pox
Spikerama
Regular
Shit, yes!
Oh man. So confusing.
Carlos Danger
Top 20
Specific Claims:
* USD 6.243 billion to compensate for the complete destruction of the value of the Manono Project.
* USD 2.081 billion to Dathcom for losses related to the same destruction.
6.243 + 2.081 = 8.324
6.243 / 8.324 = 75%
2.081 / 8.324 = 25%
Are the 10b bros ok?
Rechnerhand
Regular
Just How Badly Does Donald Trump Want Access to Critical Minerals?
" ... Despite the clear difficulties, some U.S. firms are keen to do business with the D.R.C. Bloomberg News reported that KoBold Metals, a company that counts Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos among its investors, was planning a major offer to develop a giant lithium mine in the southern Congolese town of Manono. The deal would require some sort of compensation for the Australian company with a stake in the project (in a cautionary note, the government in Kinshasa effectively prevented that firm from operating, and later cut a separate deal with a Chinese company) and would rely on a planned extension of a railway corridor to the Atlantic coast of neighboring Angola, to ship lithium concentrates to the U.S. KoBold began exploring mining in Manono before last year’s election, but a deal between the Trump Administration and Tshisekedi’s government would give the firm more confidence to invest, a source close to the negotiations told me. ..."
" ... Despite the clear difficulties, some U.S. firms are keen to do business with the D.R.C. Bloomberg News reported that KoBold Metals, a company that counts Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos among its investors, was planning a major offer to develop a giant lithium mine in the southern Congolese town of Manono. The deal would require some sort of compensation for the Australian company with a stake in the project (in a cautionary note, the government in Kinshasa effectively prevented that firm from operating, and later cut a separate deal with a Chinese company) and would rely on a planned extension of a railway corridor to the Atlantic coast of neighboring Angola, to ship lithium concentrates to the U.S. KoBold began exploring mining in Manono before last year’s election, but a deal between the Trump Administration and Tshisekedi’s government would give the firm more confidence to invest, a source close to the negotiations told me. ..."
Last edited:
Stockinvesting
Regular
What's the source please?
Stockinvesting
Regular
Cheers. Thanks.
Mute22
Regular
Who really knows how long these behind-the-scenes discussions have been going on before the media started picking it up.
If things are only now starting to heat up, 46 days is barely any time to untangle this mess, strike a deal with the US, bring in new parties, and somehow get the DRC to sign off on a resolution that compensates shareholders. The DRC is clearly still trying to walk a tightrope between US and Chinese interests — and both sides are dug in, locked in this 'wolf warrior' standoff on every front, unwilling to budge. Meanwhile, we’re the ones stuck in the middle of this geopolitical tug-of-war.
I still believe no deal will be reached before the deadline. They'll likely drag it out until the very last minute, until the final verdict looms and only then will they come to the table.
Long story short, my gut says we’re still months away from a resolution. But damn, I’d be over the moon if it came sooner!
Yeah I’d say the first catalyst has to happen before anything moves with AVZ and that’s the US signing a deal. Kobold or anyone for that matter will not drop billions without an iron clad guarantee that the mine will get up and running.They’d have seen the absolute shit show AVZ has been in for years. They’ll know more too when ICSID starts as that’s all made public ( wont be a good look for the DRC ). They’d also want the security of the US deal sorting any shit fuckery cominieire/zijin would still try.Who really knows how long these behind-the-scenes discussions have been going on before the media started picking it up.
If things are only now starting to heat up, 46 days is barely any time to untangle this mess, strike a deal with the US, bring in new parties, and somehow get the DRC to sign off on a resolution that compensates shareholders. The DRC is clearly still trying to walk a tightrope between US and Chinese interests — and both sides are dug in, locked in this 'wolf warrior' standoff on every front, unwilling to budge. Meanwhile, we’re the ones stuck in the middle of this geopolitical tug-of-war.
I still believe no deal will be reached before the deadline. They'll likely drag it out until the very last minute, until the final verdict looms and only then will they come to the table.
Long story short, my gut says we’re still months away from a resolution. But damn, I’d be over the moon if it came sooner!
More of a wait I reckon, Easter next year?
Spikerama
Regular
Who really knows how long these behind-the-scenes discussions have been going on before the media started picking it up.
If things are only now starting to heat up, 46 days is barely any time to untangle this mess, strike a deal with the US, bring in new parties, and somehow get the DRC to sign off on a resolution that compensates shareholders. The DRC is clearly still trying to walk a tightrope between US and Chinese interests — and both sides are dug in, locked in this 'wolf warrior' standoff on every front, unwilling to budge. Meanwhile, we’re the ones stuck in the middle of this geopolitical tug-of-war.
I still believe no deal will be reached before the deadline. They'll likely drag it out until the very last minute, until the final verdict looms and only then will they come to the table.
Long story short, my gut says we’re still months away from a resolution. But damn, I’d be over the moon if it came sooner!
Like I said last week or was it the week before.? I reckon we will still be talking about this at Christmas and well past page 3000.
The Guardian conveniently omits the DRC's history of egregious corruption that infests every decision, every transaction and negatively impacts the entire population. The Guardian also fails to mention China's role in enabling this corruption. There is little point in engaging in non-critical analysis or lamenting the DRC's desperate situation without at least recognising the root cause of why the DRC is the most aid-dependent nation on earth, and where approximately 75% of its citizens live in poverty.
Last edited:
Similar threads
