1. United States
2. N.Y.
3. Letter

We oppose the proposed “minerals-for-security” deal with the Alliance of Sahel States (AES)—Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger. Washington is offering counterterrorism assistance and military support in exchange for access to gold, lithium, and uranium. This is not partnership—it is extortion. The U.S. is offering to “kill the leaders of militant groups” in exchange for lithium and gold for American businesses. Yet the U.S. has a long history of supporting the very insurgents it now offers to “protect” against—destabilizing regions, then exploiting the chaos to extract resources. This mirrors the DRC—a country with vast cobalt reserves, long destabilized by armed groups like M23, where the U.S. now seeks exclusive mineral access in exchange for vague security guarantees. Those deals enrich foreign powers while leaving African communities marginalized. The AES must not become the next Congo. These minerals fuel U.S. war-making. The Department of War has declared critical minerals “fundamental to sustaining our warfighting capacity”. American access to Sahelian resources will directly enable U.S. military operations—not peace. To those who say this supports stability: Security guarantees that come with resource strings are not security—they are leverage. To those who say “trade, not aid” is progress: trading sovereignty for vague military promises is not development. To those who say Africa needs partners: Africa needs sovereign control over its own resources—not new colonial masters. This is a grassroots position. African civil society is already mobilizing. Zambia rejected a similar U.S. deal, refusing to tie health funding to mineral access. Congolese opposition is growing against underselling their mineral wealth. Solidarity movements across the globe stand with African resource sovereignty.