Trump's Quest for Mineral Control Faces History-Backed Obstacles
The Trump administration has been seeking to control critical minerals and oil abroad through equity ownership and trade agreements, but this quest is built on shaky legal foundations. According to Monica de Bolle, a researcher at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, President Donald Trump's goals are twofold: ensure a guaranteed supply of minerals at low prices for the US economy and deny them to China when circumstances warrant.
The administration has been pursuing deals with Venezuela, Brazil, Canada, and potentially other countries in Africa. However, these agreements would likely be seen as imperial exploitation by host governments, leading to their eventual demise. De Bolle points out that the 'obsolescing bargain', a pattern where host governments seek a larger share of revenues once foreign investment becomes a sunk cost, has been the experience of oil ventures in the Middle East and elsewhere.
History is riddled with examples of this phenomenon, including Mexico's expropriation of foreign petroleum companies in 1938, Iran's nationalization of Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in 1951, Peru's seizure of La Brea y Pariñas oil fields in 1968, and Chile's nationalization of copper mines in 1971. In each case, the US government responded with economic pressure or military intervention.
De Bolle argues that any deal entailing extended below-market pricing of mineral exports to the US or super profits for a US firm will inevitably be seen as imperial exploitation. The Chinese market for minerals is large and growing, making it unlikely that producers would willingly cede control to Washington.