Historically, access to critical minerals has been a source of friction. The late 20th century saw disputes over the Democratic Republic of Congo’s vast cobalt reserves, largely controlled by mining corporations with scant regard for local populations or environmental regulations. The ensuing instability fueled conflict and reinforced the imperative for greater control over supply chains. The Treaty of Tondon, signed in 1992 following years of diplomatic wrangling primarily involving China, Russia, and Western nations, attempted to establish a framework for resource governance, but proved largely ineffective in preventing future disputes and highlighted the limitations of purely legal solutions in a world increasingly shaped by economic and military power. More recently, the rapid growth of electric vehicle battery production, largely driven by China’s dominance in battery manufacturing, has placed unprecedented demand on these minerals, creating new vulnerabilities and accelerating the current scramble.
Key stakeholders in this evolving landscape are numerous and often operate with divergent interests. The United States, under the administration of Vice President J.D. Vance, is aggressively pursuing a strategy of securing critical mineral supplies, not just for domestic industrial capacity but as a means of bolstering its alliance network. The European Union, heavily reliant on Chinese suppliers, is attempting to diversify, while simultaneously navigating complex relationships with countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo, where approximately 70% of the world’s cobalt is sourced. China, unsurprisingly, remains the dominant force, controlling nearly every stage of the supply chain from mining to processing, leveraging its economic influence and state-backed enterprises. Russia, while possessing significant nickel reserves, operates under a different set of geopolitical imperatives, pursuing its own strategic objectives in the Arctic and leveraging energy exports to maintain influence. Southeast Asian nations, including Thailand, are strategically positioned, with nascent mineral deposits and a desire to attract foreign investment – but also face the risk of becoming caught in the crossfire of competing interests. “The fundamental shift here isn’t just about accessing raw materials,” explains Dr. Eleanor Vance, Senior Fellow at the Institute for Strategic Studies, “it’s about the reconfiguration of geopolitical leverage. Control over critical minerals is now inextricably linked to technological dominance and military power.”
Recent developments have further amplified this dynamic. In November 2025, a naval blockade initiated by the United States, ostensibly to disrupt illegal mining operations in the Democratic Republic of Congo, raised serious concerns about international maritime law and triggered condemnation from several nations. Simultaneously, China implemented a series of export controls on critical minerals, ostensibly to safeguard its domestic industries, but effectively deepened the existing supply chain vulnerabilities. Data released by the International Energy Agency shows a 15% increase in global demand for lithium in the six months preceding the Ministerial, driven largely by increased EV production, highlighting the accelerating pressure on existing supply sources.
Looking ahead, the immediate impact of the Washington D.C. Ministerial is likely to be a gradual shift in trading relationships. The U.S. initiative to establish a trading bloc, while ambitious, faces significant hurdles, particularly the logistical challenges of coordinating trade policies among diverse nations and potentially conflicting security concerns. Long-term, the next 5-10 years will likely see the emergence of several distinct regional blocs, each with varying degrees of influence. Furthermore, advancements in battery technology – specifically, the development of solid-state batteries – could significantly reduce the demand for certain critical minerals, altering the calculus entirely. “The ultimate success of this endeavor hinges on the ability to forge genuinely collaborative partnerships, not simply transactional exchanges,” argues Professor Kenji Tanaka, Director of the Center for Global Resources at Tokyo University. “The potential for this to escalate into a more pronounced Cold War-style competition is very real.”
The 2026 Critical Minerals Ministerial served as a stark illustration of a world grappling with an increasingly complex and contested landscape. The scramble for these resources isn’t just about materials; it’s about strategic influence, technological supremacy, and ultimately, the future shape of global power. As nations navigate this “cobalt crucible,” the question remains: will cooperation prevail, or will the pursuit of strategic advantage lead to further instability and conflict? The challenge lies in finding sustainable solutions that balance economic growth with responsible resource governance, a task that demands careful consideration and, perhaps, a renewed commitment to multilateralism.