Back to the Future? U.S. Strategy in the Global Race for Critical Minerals

Highlights

• Historian Duncan Money advocates using Cold War-era strategies to diversify and secure critical mineral supply chains.
• The U.S. historical approach involved strategic investments, loans, and partnerships with resource-rich nations to address mineral shortages.
• Modern mineral security requires navigating complex geopolitical, environmental, and economic challenges beyond historical precedents.

---

In a recent Time editorial (opens in a new tab), historian Duncan Money (opens in a new tab) draws on Cold War-era strategies to argue that the U.S. can overcome looming shortages of critical minerals (CMs) by diversifying supply chains, investing in infrastructure, and forging global partnerships.

Money traces the historical precedent set during the Korean War, when the U.S. reopened the Sangdong tungsten mine in South Korea and extended loans to resource-rich nations like Brazil, Zambia, and Congo to secure essential minerals like cobalt and copper. These efforts, he contends, successfully addressed supply vulnerabilities, bolstered U.S. stockpiles, and even generated profits when surplus minerals were later sold.

Money praises this historical blueprint, noting its relevance to today’s challenges in the race for renewable energy resources such as copper, cobalt, and lithium. The editorial highlights recent U.S. efforts, such as a $3 billion investment to expand rail infrastructure linking mines in Congo and Zambia to the Atlantic, as evidence that the Biden administration is reviving these strategies to reduce reliance on China and safeguard critical supply chains. The article positions this approach as a pragmatic solution to rising geopolitical tensions and potential export restrictions.

Any Weakness in the Perspective?

While Money’s historical analysis is compelling, his argument overlooks key modern challenges. The geopolitical landscape has shifted significantly since the 1950s, with countries like China wielding far greater influence over global supply chains. For instance, resource-rich nations in Africa now face competing offers from China, potentially limiting U.S. leverage. In fact, China has already inked multiple mining deals in Africa, and unraveling these entanglements will take time, if even feasible. 

Furthermore, Money underestimates the environmental and social costs of large-scale mining, which have become more contentious in the era of heightened climate awareness and labor rights scrutiny.  This is not the 1950s again.  He also glosses over the long timelines required to establish new supply chains (e.g., processing and refining and value-added production) and mining operations, raising questions about the feasibility of replicating Cold War-era success on a comparable timeline.

While Money effectively demonstrates the utility of historical lessons, the path forward is fraught with modern complexities. Achieving mineral security in today’s interconnected world requires not just investments and partnerships but also careful navigation of environmental, social, and geopolitical challenges that were less prominent in Eisenhower’s era.