US v SA: Antipathy to antimony
The global superpower has sought to nurture its relations with sub-saharan Africa, which is an important source of the critical minerals needed to sustain its economy
Earlier this month, International Relations Minister Naledi Pandor wrote in an article for the Financial Times that moves by US lawmakers to undermine South Africa’s economy would only be to the detriment of the global superpower.
“Seeking to bring South Africa to its knees almost amounts to self-sabotage for the US,” the minister wrote.
Pandor’s article was a response to a bilateral bill calling for the US to review its relations with South Africa in the wake of the latter country’s efforts to stop Israel’s onslaught on Gaza through the International Court of Justice. The bill contends that South Africa’s foreign policy poses a threat to US national security.
The bill was another in similar moves by the US to strong-arm South Africa into abandoning its foreign policy objectives.
US lawmakers have also threatened to remove South Africa from the African Growth and Opportunity Act (Agoa), citing the country’s ties to Russia. Some contend that, should South Africa lose out on the preferential trade agreement, it would be disastrous for the country’s already fragile economy.
Last week, a group of senators tabled legislation to renew and improve Agoa. They are also no longer asking for South Africa’s participation to be immediately reviewed, implying what many already suspect — that the country is far too important to simply cut off. Also last week, the United States Institute of Peace (Usip) published a report confirming the view that African countries, including South Africa, are vital to securing the superpower’s economic and national security.
Said report focused on US demand for key critical minerals, which the country mainly sources from its economic adversary, China. Despite making some inroads with one another, relations between the two world powers remain on unsteady ground — especially in the wake of escalating geopolitical tensions.
According to the Usip report, global demand for many critical minerals is growing rapidly. “To avoid being short-handed and vulnerable to export controls and potential market manipulation by geopolitical competitors, it is imperative for the United States to diversify its critical minerals supply chains,” the report reads.
The report notes that the supply chains for all minerals on the critical list (cobalt, graphite, lithium, manganese, nickel, as well as rare earth elements) have been deemed vulnerable. In some cases, the US relies on imports from a single country, referred to as a “single point of failure” in the report.
Citing a recent move by China to restrict graphite exports, the report underlines the danger of heavy import reliance and the need to diversify.
China’s decision to impose greater export controls on graphite, which is essential to battery production, was in response to steps by the US to limit the Asian country’s military artificial intelligence capabilities through similar trade restrictions.
The Usip report also highlights the importance of African-sourced critical minerals to the US military, giving the example of cobalt, which is essential for batteries used in military equipment.
The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) has the world’s largest reserve of cobalt, which is at the heart of the ongoing bloody war described by some as a silent genocide. The DRC’S mining industry is dominated by Chinese companies.
The report also notes that antimony, of which South Africa is one of the world’s largest producers, is used
to produce ammunition and flameretardant material. China is far and away the largest antimony producers. Russia is also high on the list.
Beyond having its own resources, as Agoa’s largest and most diversified non-oil exporter, South Africa plays a key role in maintaining sub-saharan Africa’s ties to the US.
South Africa’s inclusion in Agoa is largely to the benefit of US industry. South Africa’s gains are limited, given that the composition of its export basket to the US remains concentrated in goods that do not benefit from Agoa.
This is according to research by the Brookings Institute, which found that the loss of Agoa preferences on South Africa’s exports, employment and economic growth is likely to be quite small.
Usip points out that both the Biden and Trump administrations have expressed concern about China’s role on the African continent. The US Strategy Towards Sub-saharan Africa, drawn up under the incumbent’s government, states: “The People’s Republic of China, by contrast, sees the region as an important arena to challenge the rules-based international order, advance its own narrow commercial and geopolitical interests, undermine transparency and openness, and weaken US relations with African peoples and governments.”
The document goes on to state that Russia views sub-saharan Africa “as a permissive environment for parastatals and private military companies, often fomenting instability for strategic and financial benefit”.
Although the strategy document and the Usip report both suggest the US intends on playing a more benevolent role in the region, its track record — including in the DRC and South Africa — implies otherwise.
Under the current circumstances, and given that its influence in the region is already compromised by its competition, it is no wonder that the US doesn’t want to sabotage its prospects in Africa.