Blood, Borders, and Batteries: The Violent Persistence of Conflict Minerals in the Global Economy
I was one of the first few critics of how ESG was being done. Not because I was against its goals, but because I saw the façade—what masqueraded as virtue was often little more than compliance theatre wrapped in consulting jargon. Behind the metrics and the frameworks, the same extractive circuits powered the global economy, now simply rebranded as sustainable. Fast forward to today, and while the language has shifted, the underlying machinery has not. If anything, the pressure to transition has intensified the contradictions. The minerals economy—once a quiet backbone of industrial growth—is now exposed in full view, and what it reveals is uncomfortable: that the global shift to clean energy and digital infrastructure is being built on violence, displacement, and institutionalized opacity.
What follows is not the story of ESG’s failure, but of its incomplete reckoning. The war zones that supply our batteries, turbines, and microchips remain entangled in violence. The actors have changed, the slogans have evolved, but the logic is stubbornly intact. ESG hasn’t died. It has gone subterranean—folded into national security, green industrial policy, and geopolitical hedging. And in the case of conflict minerals, it has become the shadow ledger of progress.
At the center of this emerging order is the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, where conflict minerals continue to fuel war economies under the radar of ESG dashboards. The M23 rebellion, revived with fresh momentum and alleged state backing from Rwanda, now holds critical ground across North Kivu’s richest coltan and cassiterite territories. In Masisi, Walikale, and Rutshuru, the group has established a parallel economy, imposing systematic taxation on artisanal miners and smuggling networks. Conservative estimates put their coltan revenue at over $800,000 per month, with an additional $300,000 flowing in from taxes on other mineral exports. These are not battlefield spoils. They are central to the business model—violence is not the byproduct, it is the infrastructure.
International mechanisms meant to prevent this kind of mineral laundering are in collapse. Initiatives like ITSCI, which once promised traceability and ethical sourcing, have been compromised by fraud, extortion, and logistical breakdowns. Tags can be bought, paperwork is forged, and cooperatives on the ground often exist only on paper. The global supply chain that connects Congolese miners to European consumers remains opaque and brittle. Meanwhile, upstream buyers in East Asia and Europe continue to rely on this flawed documentation, satisfying their compliance obligations while ignoring the reality of how these minerals are extracted and moved.
The Democratic Republic of Congo is not an exception. It is a prototype. Across Latin America, the minerals economy is emerging as a new vector of violence. In Venezuela’s Orinoco Arc, state-backed syndicates mine coltan and gold in exchange for political loyalty. Indigenous communities are driven off ancestral land, forests are razed, and the toxic sludge left behind makes a mockery of any sustainability claim. Extraction here is lawless, but not chaotic. It is carefully structured, regulated not by government but by networks of armed intermediaries, some wearing uniforms and others camouflage.
Panama presents a more institutional variant of the same tension. In late 2023, the country's Supreme Court invalidated a billion-dollar mining contract with First Quantum Minerals over the Cobre Panama mine on constitutional grounds, citing national sovereignty and environmental violations. But the fallout has made clear just how brittle the legal frameworks governing global extraction are. Behind every concession lies a fraught matrix of public trust, investor pressure, and state strategy. The collapse of one deal sends a warning to dozens of others: the mineral frontier is increasingly contested, and legal consensus is no longer a given.
Myanmar’s Kachin State offers a darker reflection still. Here, rare earths and jade are extracted under conditions that defy both international law and basic decency. Rebel factions and military proxies run de facto fiefdoms over lucrative mines. Labor conditions are atrocious, safety non-existent, and ecological degradation irreversible. But what elevates the tragedy to global consequence is how easily these raw materials flow into clean-tech and electronics supply chains. The minerals that power green energy transitions in Seoul, Berlin, and Silicon Valley are often pulled from the mud by children working for armed groups in places like Hpakant (for jade) and the rare earth mining areas controlled by groups like the Kachin Independence Army.
In South Asia, Pakistan has moved aggressively to court foreign capital with promises of untapped reserves of lithium, copper, and rare earths. Yet the frontier being advertised in Karachi is built on the unstable foundation of Balochistan, where resistance movements continue to attack energy infrastructure and government installations. The minerals may be real, but so are the bloodlines carved into the land by decades of violence, forced disappearances, and military crackdowns. ESG investment frameworks do not map neatly onto this terrain. They either ignore its volatility or package it as frontier risk.
Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction offers another lens into how the minerals economy is now being folded into grand strategy. Under a new bilateral agreement signed in April 2025, the United States has pledged support for critical mineral extraction in Ukraine—rare earths, graphite, titanium—all seen as key to decoupling from Russian and Chinese supply chains. Yet the political optics of extraction in a post-conflict state are murky. Local populations displaced by war are now being reabsorbed into labor pools designed to service Western security needs. The language of aid and partnership often conceals an old dynamic: extraction without agency.
Even as these zones of violence expand, regulatory mechanisms remain sluggish. The European Union’s updated Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas list has improved geographic precision but continues to rely on industry self-reporting. NGOs like Global Witness have documented how conflict minerals regularly enter legal markets through laundering networks in Rwanda and Uganda, but enforcement is sporadic and sanctions are rare. In the United States, the Securities and Exchange Commission has largely deprioritized its conflict minerals rule. With mounting corporate pressure and political fragmentation, the regime has become more symbolic than substantive. Concrete consequences are slowly emerging but are still exceptions: for instance, Belgium launched a criminal investigation in early 2025 into Apple's alleged use of conflict-tainted minerals sourced from the DRC, and while a similar complaint in France was initially dismissed, the actions signal growing scrutiny.
Some national governments are stepping into the vacuum with new mineral strategies. South Korea, under its chairmanship of the Minerals Security Partnership, has launched a critical minerals investment council and stabilization fund aimed at diversifying supply away from China. These efforts are well-financed, strategically sound, and geopolitically sharp—but they are not ethically grounded. In most cases, the rights of Indigenous peoples, local workers, and ecologically sensitive zones are treated as externalities, not design parameters.
The result is a global minerals economy that is more volatile, more militarized, and more central to global power than ever before. It is no longer hidden. It has become the raw circuitry of the energy transition, the battery of the battery economy. The dream of a clean transition has collided with the reality of dirty inputs. ESG, once heralded as the ethical scaffolding for this journey, now survives only in footnotes and compliance portals. Its failure was not in ambition, but in architecture. It mistook measurement for morality, certification for change.
What remains is a world in which minerals dictate borders, fuel wars, and structure foreign policy. The new clean economy is being built on old violence. Until this contradiction is addressed—not with frameworks, but with structural reform and political will—we will continue to dig our future from the same holes that buried our past.
As always, thank you for reading.
As we continue exploring the complexities of global markets together, I’m genuinely humbled by the growth of this community—now 56,000+ strong. It’s an honour to engage with such an insightful and globally diverse audience, with readers spanning 107 countries, from the United States to Switzerland.
Your feedback and engagement have been instrumental in shaping the topics I explore. If you've found value in these perspectives, I’d love for you to share this newsletter with your networks. Together, we’re fostering deeper discussions and critical thinking about where the markets are heading. Please write to me at kam@amanahcapital.uk