Saturday Southerner  —Foreign Perspectives 

Saturday, January 10, 2026

“In international politics and diplomacy, oil pays the bills but minerals shape the future for long term strategic advantage.”

This observation by Dr. Nelson Aluya, a Nigerian-American physician and pan-Africanist, encapsulates a profound shift occurring in the 21st-century geopolitical landscape. For over a century, the global order was inextricably linked to the flow of oil, with nations rising and falling on their ability to control this vital resource.

However, as the world transitions towards a decarbonized and technologically advanced future, a new class of resources—critical minerals—is emerging as the cornerstone of long-term strategic power.

While hydrocarbons continue to fuel the global economy, the competition for minerals like lithium, cobalt, rare earth elements, and graphite is defining the new great-power rivalry and redrawing the map of international influence.

This article explores the transition from a geopolitical order dominated by oil diplomacy to one increasingly shaped by the control of critical mineral supply chains.

It will first examine the historical context of oil’s reign, then contrast it with the unique dynamics of the burgeoning mineral age, focusing on the intense strategic competition between the United States and China.

Finally, it will analyze the strategic opportunity this presents for resource-rich continents like Africa, arguing that the future of global advantage lies not in the extraction of raw materials, but in the mastery of their complex value chains.

An enduring legacy of oil diplomacy

The era of oil diplomacy, which began in the early 20th century, fundamentally shaped international relations. The insatiable demand for petroleum, first for industrialization and then for military and transportation dominance, placed oil-producing nations at the center of global power struggles.

The United States’ foreign policy, in particular, has been heavily influenced by its dependence on oil since the end of World War II, leading to strategic alliances, military interventions, and the establishment of a global financial system underwritten by petroleum.

The creation of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in 1960 marked a pivotal moment, granting a cartel of producer nations immense leverage over the global economy. The 1973 oil crisis, when Arab nations imposed an embargo in response to the Yom Kippur War, was a stark demonstration of this power, causing prices to quadruple and sending shockwaves through Western economies [1].

This event led to the creation of the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, institutionalizing energy security as a primary national interest [1].

The subsequent decades were characterized by a focus on securing access to Middle Eastern oil, culminating in military conflicts like the Gulf War and a persistent U.S. military presence in the region.

This era was defined by the petrodollar system, where oil is priced and traded in U.S. dollars, cementing the dollar’s status as the world’s primary reserve currency and giving the United States significant economic influence.

The geopolitics of oil were characterized by the flow of a liquid, fungible commodity, where power was derived from controlling vast reserves and influencing volatile global prices.

Dawn of the mineral age

The 21st century’s clean energy transition and digital revolution are powered by a different set of resources. Critical minerals are the building blocks of modern technology, from the lithium and cobalt in electric vehicle (EV) batteries to the rare earth elements (REEs) in wind turbines and advanced defense systems, and the gallium and germanium in semiconductors.

The U.S. Energy Act of 2020 defines a mineral as “critical” if it is essential to economic or national security and its supply chain is vulnerable to disruption.

Demand for these materials is projected to skyrocket. The IEA forecasts that the demand for critical minerals will at least triple by 2040 [3].

An electric vehicle requires six times the mineral inputs of a conventional car, and an onshore wind plant requires nine times more mineral resources than a gas-fired plant. This surge in demand is creating a new set of dependencies and vulnerabilities that are fundamentally different from those of the oil era.

A new geopolitical calculus: Oil vs. minerals

The geopolitical dynamics of critical minerals diverge significantly from those of oil, creating a new strategic calculus for nations. The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) highlights several key distinctions.

Unlike oil, where geological abundance was the primary determinant of power, the strategic chokepoint for critical minerals lies in processing and refining. A nation can possess vast mineral reserves but lack geopolitical influence if it does not control the technology and infrastructure to convert those raw ores into high-purity, usable materials. This is the central pillar of China’s dominance in the sector.

U.S.-China competition: A battle for the future

The strategic competition between the United States and China is the defining feature of the new mineral age. China’s ascent to dominance was not accidental but the result of a decades-long industrial strategy, famously articulated by Deng Xiaoping during his 1992 Southern Tour: “The Middle East has oil; China has rare earths”.

Through massive state subsidies, intellectual property acquisition, and a tolerance for the environmental costs that Western nations eschewed, China established a near-monopoly over the processing of most critical minerals.

Today, China refines approximately 90% of the world’s rare earth elements and is the leading refiner for 19 of 20 key energy-related minerals].

For minerals like lithium and cobalt, China’s share of raw extraction is relatively low (10-30%), but its control over refining and processing reaches a commanding 60-70%.

Beijing has demonstrated its willingness to weaponize this dominance. In 2010, it restricted REE exports to Japan during a maritime dispute.

More recently, it has imposed export controls on gallium and germanium, effectively removing a majority of the global supply from international markets and disrupting chip and defense supply chains.

These actions are a clear signal that Beijing views its control over mineral supply chains as a powerful tool of economic statecraft.

The United States has been slow to recognize this vulnerability but is now scrambling to respond. The strategy involves a two-pronged approach: onshoring and “friend-shoring.”

Domestically, the government is using grants, loans, and offtake agreements to stimulate investment in mining and processing, though this is hampered by long permitting times (an average of 29 years for a new U.S. mine) and high costs.

More critically, the U.S. is working to build resilient supply chains with allies and partners, creating a “global ecosystem of trusted critical mineral producers” to counter China’s influence].

Initiatives like the Lobito Corridor project in Africa, which connects mineral-rich regions in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Zambia to the Atlantic coast, exemplify this strategy of leveraging development finance to build alternative infrastructure and foster new partnerships.

Africa’s strategic crossroads

This new geopolitical landscape presents a historic opportunity for resource-rich regions, particularly Africa. As Dr. Aluya argues, the continent must transition from being a passive supplier of raw materials to an active, strategic partner.

Africa holds a significant portion of the world’s critical mineral reserves, including the majority of cobalt (DRC), platinum and iridium (South Africa), and significant deposits of lithium, graphite, and manganese.

However, to translate this geological wealth into strategic advantage, African nations must move up the value chain. The old model of exporting raw ore for a fraction of its final value, while foreign powers capture the immense wealth generated by processing and manufacturing, is a relic of the colonial and petro-state era. Dr. Aluya calls for a redefinition of Africa as a “ready-for-business continent” based on “equitable partnership, mutual respect and not of subservience”.

This requires fostering domestic processing capabilities, investing in human capital, and creating stable regulatory environments that attract long-term investment. By doing so, African nations can not only capture a greater share of the economic benefits but also gain significant geopolitical leverage in a world hungry for secure and diversified mineral supplies.

Conclusion

The global order is at an inflection point. The geopolitical certainties of the oil age are giving way to the complex and contested dynamics of the mineral age.

While oil will continue to be a crucial commodity that “pays the bills” for the global economy for years to come, the long-term strategic advantage is being forged in the mines, refineries, and battery factories that form the backbone of the 21st-century technological and energy landscape.

China’s strategic foresight has given it a formidable head start in this new great game, but the competition is far from over. The United States and its allies are now mobilizing to build resilient and diversified supply chains, creating new opportunities for resource-rich nations to assert their influence.

As Nelson Aluya’s prescient quote suggests, the future will not be shaped by those who merely extract resources from the ground, but by those who master the knowledge, technology, and partnerships to transform them into the building blocks of modern civilization.

The struggle to control these critical minerals is, therefore, a struggle to shape the future itself.