In an op-ed in De Morgen “A more strategic raw materials policy is needed, but cynically looking away is not the solution”, IPIS’ Director Filip Reyniers and Chair Loïc De Cannière respond to Mark Elchardus, who recently argued that it would be “incomprehensible” and an example of “moral blindness” if the EU decided to end its raw materials agreement with Rwanda, in particular when it comes to Rwandese tungsten.
This op-ed was published in Dutch in De Morgen on November 20th, 2025
— Filip Reyniers and Loïc De Cannière
In his recent op-ed in De Morgen, Mark Elchardus expresses his incomprehension at the fact that Europe has terminated an agreement with Rwanda on wolfram. However, this is a selective reading of the facts.
The agreement does not specifically concern tungsten, but several raw materials, including the notorious coltan. UN investigators have proven in black and white that coltan is being smuggled into Rwanda on a large scale.
The agreement, which is not yet operational, has not been terminated. In February, the European Parliament called for its suspension until Rwanda ceases all interference in eastern Congo. This call received very broad support, including from the centre-right and conservative groups. The Commission then promised to conduct a ‘review’ – but nothing more has been heard about this. Incidentally, this does not prevent any European company from purchasing raw materials in Rwanda, which is common practice today.
The main criticism of the agreement between the European Union and Rwanda does not concern the democratic nature of the Rwandan regime. The crux of the matter is the large-scale and well-documented smuggling of coltan, tin and gold from eastern Congo. This smuggling is, of course, part of a broader pattern of an informal economy in which people try to evade countless legal and illegal taxes. Armed groups and military personnel responsible for the most horrific human rights violations are taking advantage of this context to finance their activities. One example is M23, a rebel movement that, with military support from Rwanda, has taken control of the cities of Goma and Bukavu, each with a population of over a million. This was the specific reason for the resolution in the European Parliament. The fact that Rwanda itself also has thousands of troops on the ground is not denied: in the peace agreement reached in June under pressure from the Trump administration, Rwanda declared its willingness to withdraw its troops from eastern Congo. It remains to be seen whether this will have any effect, as there has been no sign of it on the ground so far.
Defenders of the agreement argue that it will give the EU more leverage to pressure Rwanda to comply with international standards on transparency in the extractive sector. But concluding a raw materials deal with a country that violates the territorial integrity of a neighbouring country and facilitates the theft of raw materials is at the very least bad timing and sends a bad signal to African countries and the wider international community. The Congo may score poorly on all kinds of democracy and transparency indices, but there are no Congolese troops in Rwanda, and Congo does not sell tungsten that has been smuggled or stolen from Rwanda. The agreement has therefore been particularly poorly received diplomatically. Imagine if the EU were to conclude a strategic raw materials deal with Russia in order to import critical minerals from eastern Ukraine.
Elchardus has a point when he argues that we would end up in an absurd situation if, for ethical reasons, we did not want to buy the minerals we need for our energy transition directly from Rwanda, and do it indirectly via the US. But cynically looking away and accusing critical observers of ‘piety’ is not the solution. The objective of the Global Gateway, the ambitious European project to which Elchardus refers, is not only security of supply, but also support for local development. Analysing the impact on development and security of the projects you want to support is therefore a logical step, and should not be dismissed as the cultivation of pious intentions.
Congolese doctor and Nobel Prize winner Denis Mukwege stated that, with these kinds of raw material deals, the ‘green deal’ will be red with the blood of Congolese women and children. This is the perspective of the people on the ground. The conflict in eastern Congo is not just about minerals, and we will not solve it with an ethical supply policy alone. But the extreme situation, and Rwanda’s involvement in it, obliges us to take a much more critical approach to such partnerships and leaves no room for a purely pragmatic attitude towards raw materials policy.
More on the topic
