In an era of fractured alliances and growing scarcity, the world’s most contested assets are no longer oil or arms, but minerals buried deep in the earth. From lithium and cobalt to rare earth elements and graphite, critical raw materials (CRMs) now underpin the technologies driving green energy, artificial intelligence, and modern defence systems.
Nowhere is the competition for these materials more geopolitically charged than in Africa.
China has spent decades entrenching itself across the continent, investing not only in extraction, but also in infrastructure and high-value processing. Europe and the United States, by contrast, are only now awakening to the full extent of their strategic dependency. The race is no longer simply about securing supply. It is about sovereignty, resilience and narrative.
Can the Global North re-engage with Africa without echoing colonial patterns? Can Europe transform strategic vulnerability into partnership and foresight? And what role should Sweden, a country with critical resources and world-leading innovation, play in this increasingly high-stakes landscape?
China’s Mineral Dominance
China’s dominance in Africa’s mining sector is not just economic; it is architectural. Through long-term, state-backed investments, infrastructure-for-resource deals, and deep involvement in local economies, Beijing has embedded itself across the entire mineral value chain. Crucially, it does not stop at extraction. China has secured vertical integration: building processing plants, refining facilities, and logistics hubs directly adjacent to mining operations.
This strategy allows China to control not only the supply but also the conversion of raw materials into strategic capabilities, from battery cells to defence components. It has effectively bypassed the Global North, which is now struggling to catch up in a field it largely ignored for too long.
Strategically, this dominance delivers more than economic return: it grants soft power leverage over nations whose industrial and military futures depend on these materials. To control CRMs today is to shape the speed, scale, and sovereignty of technological advancement.
By 2024, China processed nearly 70% of the world’s rare earth minerals, refined around 90%, and produced 92% of high-performance magnets essential to modern weapons systems, data infrastructure, and clean tech.
Strategic Engagement or Strategic Amnesia?
As the West scrambles to diversify supply chains and reduce dependence on China, a strategic paradox emerges:
Can we secure CRMs without reviving the same patterns of extraction and control that once defined colonialism?
The EU’s Critical Raw Materials Act and U.S. initiatives like the Minerals Security Partnership mark a renewed effort to source materials such as cobalt, lithium, and rare earths. But urgency must not blind policy. These efforts risk being perceived as a new form of resource diplomacy, one where security interests override questions of local agency, ownership, and long-term development.
This is not merely a question of access. It is a test of legitimacy and of how power is projected in the 21st century.
China’s influence is not confined to Africa or Southeast Asia. In 2024, Beijing restricted graphite exports to Sweden while a Chinese firm simultaneously applied to establish synthetic graphite production inside Swedish territory.
The message is clear: economic openness without strategic alignment leaves even high-trust democracies vulnerable.
What’s needed is a new compact, one that balances resilience with respect, and industrial ambition with genuine partnership. One where co-investment, technology transfer, and local value creation are not afterthoughts, but fundamentals.
The Geopolitical Risk: What If Africa Says No?
There is an unspoken vulnerability in the current Western scramble for strategic autonomy:
What if African nations simply choose not to align with Western supply chain agendas?
Many have already signalled a desire to move away from extractive, one-sided arrangements. Some are forging deeper ties with China, drawn by long-term investments, infrastructure development, and the perception, fair or not, of fewer political strings.
Others are aligning with new blocs altogether: BRICS expansion, South–South cooperation, and multi-vector diplomacy are becoming the new normal. In this emerging landscape, access to critical materials is no longer guaranteed.
Sweden’s Strategic Leverage: From Reserves to Responsibility
While global powers measure strength in volume and speed, Sweden offers a different kind of leverage: technological depth, ESG leadership, and long-standing credibility.
Sweden is the EU’s largest producer of iron, and Kiruna is home to Europe’s most significant rare earth deposit, confirmed in 2023. A new graphite mine near Vittangi is advancing after being declared of national strategic interest, and Finland already refines 10% of the world’s cobalt. Norway contributes significantly to graphite and rare metal production.
These are not just mineral assets, they are strategic endowments. Nordic mining, is far less carbon-intensive than global competitors. Nordic ESG standards offer a model where resource extraction does not come at the expense of environmental integrity or labour protections.
In a world of fragile supply chains and escalating geopolitical friction, trust is a strategic asset. Sweden, and the Nordics more broadly, are among Europe’s most credible stewards of that trust.
Defending Our Democracies With More Than Words
The defence implications of CRM access are too often understated. CRMs are not only vital to industrial growth and climate policy, they are also foundational to our security architectures. From stealth fighter magnets to satellite components, from drones to missile guidance systems, these materials are embedded in every layer of defence capability.
To ensure national security and defend democratic sovereignty, the Global North must not just compete, it must commit.
Sweden, with its innovation ecosystem, from green steel (HYBRIT) to AI-enabled manufacturing, sits at the intersection of sustainability and security. But soft power alone is not enough. Geopolitical credibility must now be matched with material capacity.
Can We Compete Without Repeating History?
As Europe and the U.S. move to secure CRMs from Africa, a difficult truth re-emerges:
Strategic ambition risks echoing colonial legacies unless we ask how, and for whom, these partnerships are built.
If the Global North engages African markets with vague promises, extractive intent, and top-down frameworks, it risks repeating the past in modern form.
Instead, we must ask:
Can resilience be built collaboratively rather than competitively?
That would require:
- Transparent, enforceable ESG frameworks that empower local ownership.
- Real investment in local beneficiation, not just extraction.
- Multi-stakeholder dialogue where African voices shape the terms.
Because long-term access will not be secured through pressure. It will be earned—through partnership, equality, and trust.
Conclusion: Trust as Strategic Power
We are entering a decisive moment in global power politics one where control is not exerted through conquest, but through supply chains, standards, and silent dependencies.
If CRMs are the arteries of tomorrow’s security, then trust is its beating heart.
Europe, Sweden in particular, has a unique opportunity to lead not through domination, but through design. By choosing cooperation over control and long-term vision over short-term gain, we can shape a new model of engagement. One that strengthens democratic security and resilience, without repeating history.
Strategic minerals shape the future. But strategic memory decides what kind of future we build.
The question is no longer:
Can we compete?
The real question is:
Can we win, not despite our values, but because of them?