On February 21, 2025, Dr Aaron Poynton, envoy for Senator Pierre Kanda Kalambayi of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), wrote to U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, urging a Washington, D.C., summit between President Félix Tshisekedi and President Donald Trump to seal a strategic pact.
At stake: U.S. access to the DRC’s US$24 trillion in untapped critical minerals – cobalt, lithium, and more – to fortify supply chains and blunt China’s dominance, alongside military aid to stabilise a nation scarred by conflict.
Registered under FARA on February 27, the proposal sparked fiery debates in African WhatsApp forums, where it’s seen as proof of systemic breakdowns: the East African Community’s faltering grip, the African Union’s feeble global clout, and the tangle of navigating superpower rivalries.
Two questions burn at the heart of these clashes: Are Africa’s leaders the “right” ones, and what does “right” mean when its edges blur with every vantage point? This analysis probes the letter’s stakes – mineral rights, military bases, port control – to weigh Tshisekedi’s gambit and its wider echoes, asking if leaders at national, regional, and continental levels match the slippery standard of “rightness” for Africa’s trials.
Contested mirror
The concept of “right” leaders resists a fixed shape, bending with context, values, and who’s judging. What does “right” mean here? It’s a call that shifts: right for whom, for what aim, to what end? Three lenses bring it into focus. Effectiveness tracks hard results – security, prosperity, resource stewardship – measured by outcomes like quelling chaos or clinching alliances.
READ MORE: President Samia Meets DRC Foreign Minister Thérèse Kayikwamba Wagner
Legitimacy rests on democratic trust and moral weight, binding a leader’s mandate to public faith and ethical clarity. Vision demands a far horizon – nurturing sovereignty, unity, and resilience – over fleeting patches. Yet “right” pivots by perspective. Nationalists say it’s right for the nation, shielding autonomy for self-reliance. Pragmatists argue it’s right for survival, grabbing aid to endure crises.
Pan-Africanists insist it’s right for Africa, forging solidarity to rival global titans. In the DRC’s crucible – war, wealth, foreign pull – “right” fractures. Is swapping minerals for peace “right”? For survival or supremacy? Dependency or strength? It’s a contested mirror, reflecting priorities that refuse to align.
Tshisekedi’s leadership meets this crucible. His February 21 letter dangles U.S. mineral access and bases to tame unrest – a lifeline some Congolese embrace after 15 million deaths, while others decry it as a sovereignty surrender, chaining the nation to reliance.
His legitimacy, bruised by 2023 election rigging claims, and his bypass of African-led paths split opinions further. Regionally, the EAC’s stumbles since the DRC’s 2022 entry – failing to curb M23 rebels or a January 2025 land grab – cast shadows on its leaders. To Congolese, it’s not “right” for peace, a coordination collapse fueling disorder; to EAC states, it’s right for their own turf, dodging the quagmire.
Continentally, the AU’s silence on the DRC’s US$24 trillion bounty and U.S. tilt betrays a vision drought. Pan-Africanists mourn the missed shot at unity; donors see it as right for thrift, leaning on outsiders to keep afloat. Tshisekedi’s U.S. play – effective for some, illegitimate to others – mirrors a crisis where “right” twists: survival for nations, strength for Africa.
READ MORE: What Does the End of SADC Mission in DRC Mean for Tanzania?
Tshisekedi’s proposal offers the U.S. extraction rights, Banana Port control, a mineral stockpile, and military muscle to secure supply lines. As the globe’s cobalt titan – over 70 per cent – and a lithium and uranium wellspring, the DRC is a linchpin for U.S. defence and tech industries, a bulwark against China’s mining edge.
It syncs with efforts like the Lobito Corridor but barters sovereignty for stability. Social media discussions framed it as a trade – minerals for troops to rout M23 – highlighting the dicey dance with superpower agendas.
The letter warns of a “strategic gap” if the U.S. wavers, ceding resources and supply chains to rivals. Tshisekedi’s pragmatism cuts through, snaring aid where African frameworks fail, but critics see a legitimacy lapse in yielding autonomy and a vision shortfall in shunning regional bonds.
EACA’s leadership void
The EAC’s inability to anchor the DRC exposes its leadership voids. Tshisekedi banked on its Regional Force and Nairobi Process post-2022 to quell eastern strife, including a January 2025 territorial blow. Yet the force lacks teeth, undercut by Rwanda’s alleged M23 support and Kenya’s limp mediation.
The Nairobi Process stalled, unable to halt the violence or fold in armed factions – a mark of EAC leaders like Ruto favouring national playbooks over joint resolve. A “right” regional helm would unite the bloc to lock down the DRC’s mineral zones and neutralize threats, a test failed here. Tshisekedi’s U.S. shift plugs this gap but strains regional ties, probing his own “rightness” in knitting cooperation.
The AU’s quiet on the DRC’s crisis and U.S. deal lays bare a continental chasm. Armed with a G20 seat and peace funding, it offers no counter to Tshisekedi’s solo run. Shackled by donor dependence and internal rifts, it squanders the DRC’s resource heft for Africa’s rise.
Tshisekedi’s U.S. pact – trading minerals and bases – shows grit, securing aid where the EAC falters amid relentless unrest. Yet his legitimacy frays after the 2023 election scandals, and his vision dims, swapping sovereignty for short-term calm. Nationalists may cheer his survival play; pan-Africanists see it as a dodge of African solutions.
Regionally, EAC leaders like Ruto lack punch, failing to unify or stop M23 – despite Rwanda’s shadow – leaving the Nairobi Process and Regional Force adrift. Their vision fizzles, prioritising home fronts over shared security, nudging the DRC outward.
Continentally, the AU’s silence – despite G20 status and peace funds – dulls its moral and strategic edge, missing the DRC’s US$24 trillion potential. Africa’s leaders often turn to global powers when local systems cease to function, and Tshisekedi’s move fits that arc.
“Right” hinges on the lens: survivalists laud his resolve, regionalists decry EAC drift, pan-Africanists fault AU stillness. Fresh from AU elections, change looms, but “rightness” stays fluid – effectiveness clashing with ideals, split by who’s watching.
Hopes
Conversely, discussions on the former AUC administration suggest it epitomised continental inertia – paralysed by donor strings and fractured unity, it watched the DRC’s crisis and U.S. tilt unfold in silence, ceding Africa’s voice. Yet the newly installed AUC leadership, sworn in post-2025 elections, stirs hope.
Early moves – like rallying states for a unified peace push and eyeing the DRC’s unrest as a test of collective will – signal a break from the past. The readiness shown by the newly installed leadership at the AUC promises hope towards reframing the AU as a broker of African-led solutions, not a bystander.
This flicker of resolve hints at a “rightness” long absent: vision to bind nations, effectiveness to act. Still, it’s a fragile dawn – whether it holds against the DRC’s pull to external powers remains the proving ground.
Evans Rubara is a Tanzania-based natural resource management specialist. He is available at erubara@outlook.com or on X as @ThePunditsFolly. These are the writer’s own opinions and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of The Chanzo. Do you want to publish in this space? Contact our editors at editor@thechanzo.com for further inquiries.
