Kenya’s $62 billion gamble: A new battlefield for US–China competition over critical minerals

NAIROBI: KENYA’S decision to launch a high-value global tender to exploit niobium and rare-earth deposits at Mrima Hill is not just a routine mining policy move; it marks a crucial geopolitical moment.

Misunderstandings, inflammatory language, abuse by leaders, corruption accusations, and a lack of consensus on the shared goal of developing Kenya through sound policies among the candidates contesting in the 2027 general elections could potentially have a detrimental impact on the country’s future.

The site has the potential to become one of Africa’s most strategic mineral assets, attracting significant interest from both the United States and China, and is valued or indicated at approximately 62.4 billion US dollars.

The situation in Kwale County is not solely a dispute over mineral rights.

It is the local manifestation of a broader global conflict for control of critical mineral supply chains, which are the foundation of modern technology, renewable energy transitions, and military power.

Kenya is currently situated at the epicentre of a 21st-century “resource chessboard,” in which global superpowers are vying for influence as well as minerals.

Mrima Hill is unusual for a mineral deposit. Geological surveys have identified the presence of key strategic minerals such as niobium, yttrium, thorium, strontium, and lanthanum.

These minerals are crucial for manufacturing electric vehicles, smartphones, renewable energy systems, and advanced defence technologies.

For example, niobium is crucial for strengthening steel used in aerospace and energy infrastructure, while rare earth elements are vital for developing high-performance magnets and battery technologies.

These minerals are not just commodities; they serve as catalysts for the global digital and ecological economy.

The resource’s importance is heightened by its size. Mrima Hill is one of the largest undeveloped deposits globally, with estimates suggesting it contains millions of tonnes of niobium and tens of millions of tonnes of rare earth materials.

Nevertheless, a critical proviso remains: a comprehensive economic viability study has yet to be carried out.

This creates uncertainty, as previous decisions that did not seek approval from the Kenyan parliament have led to ambiguity.

As a result, the tender represents both a calculated risk and an opportunity.

The strong interest from both Washington and Beijing, which may not be widely recognised, points to a deeper structural shift in global geopolitics.

Rare earth minerals have become strategic assets, similar to oil in the 20th century.

The global rare earth processing industry is currently dominated by China, which controls up to 80–90 per cent of the processing capacity.

Beijing has gained considerable influence over global supply chains as a result of this dominance, particularly during times of geopolitical tension.

However, the United States has been making a concerted effort to diversify its sources of critical minerals.

Kenya owes China billions of dollars in debt incurred during the construction of the SGR railway, despite the fact that its engagement in Kenya is part of a broader strategy to reduce reliance on Chinese supply chains and secure alternative, “trusted” partners.

There are numerous concerns regarding the potential repercussions of this situation. These contrasting approaches are currently evident at Mrima Hill.

The US model emphasises value addition, local processing, and partnerships built on transparency and sustainability, whereas the Chinese model has historically focused on rapid extraction and export, leveraging its strength in downstream processing.

This discrepancy is not only economic; it reflects differing development philosophies.

Kenya must now decide which approach aligns better with its long-term national interests. Kenya’s transition from resource supplier to strategic negotiator.

Kenya’s current strategy is characterised by its effort to move away from the traditional extractive paradigm that has historically shaped Africa’s exchanges with global powers.

The government has organised the tender in line with the Mining Act and 2017 regulations.

ALSO READ: Design flaws cast doubt on Kenya’s new infrastructure fund strategy

Investors must demonstrate technical expertise, financial capacity, and a commitment to sustainable environmental practices, community engagement, and social responsibility.

They are also expected to show dedication to local processing (beneficiation).

This indicates a deliberate shift towards resource nationalism with a developmental focus—a model where the state aims for structural transformation rather than solely revenue.

In practical terms, Kenya is signalling that it will no longer accept agreements where raw minerals are exported with little local benefit.

Instead, it aims to capture value across the entire chain, from extraction to processing and possibly manufacturing.

This strategy aligns with a broader continental trend, in which African countries are increasingly leveraging the global energy transition to renegotiate their roles in international value chains.

However, a complex web of risks that could undermine the endeavour if not carefully managed lies beneath the optimism. Initially, the issue of sovereignty and control emerges.

Kenya’s capacity to retain full strategic authority over this vital resource is challenged by the involvement of influential external players.

History offers warnings about the repercussions of unfavourable agreements, which have led resource-rich nations to lose control of their wealth.

Secondly, environmental and cultural sensitivities pose a significant obstacle.

Mrima Hill is not just a mineral deposit; it is also a sacred site for local communities and a protected forest.

Potential environmental degradation, displacement of local populations, destruction of culturally significant sites, and radioactive waste associated with certain rare earth elements have all been subjects of concern.

Social resistance, legal disputes, and project delays may occur if these issues are not addressed transparently and inclusively. Third, there is a risk of geopolitical entanglements.

Kenya might find itself in a delicate position as the rivalry between the United States and China continues to intensify.

The country must ensure it benefits from both sides while avoiding overdependence on either.

The main question is whether Mrima Hill will act as a driver for economic change or if it will exemplify the “resource curse” for Kenya, considering the ongoing discussion about issues such as Turkana oil.

On one hand, the project has the potential to generate significant government revenue, attract infrastructure investment, position Kenya as a major player in the global critical minerals market, and create jobs while developing local skills.

However, the lack of strong governance could lead to the elite capturing resource rents, environmental damage, limited local value addition, and rising inequality.

The difference between these two outcomes lies in the implementation of the policy.

I believe that Kenya’s experience reflects the broader principles emerging from the global race for rare earths. Originally, control over processing is just as vital as control over resources.

China’s dominance is not solely based on mining; it mainly stems from its ability to refine and produce downstream goods.

Kenya’s commitment to local processing is therefore strategically sensible. Secondly, alliances are important.

Countries are forming strategic partnerships to protect their supply chains.

Kenya’s decision will affect its geopolitical alignment as well as its economy.

Third, transparency and governance are essential. Fair value from Kenya’s resources will be established through open tender processes, clear regulations, and accountability measures.

I believe that the moment Kenya is going through as it opens this type of tender to investors is a defining moment for both the country and Africa.

Mrima Hill is not simply a mining enterprise; it serves as a test case for how African nations engage with the global economy amid resource-driven geopolitics. The stakes are extremely high for Kenya.

The country could become a strategic hub in the global critical minerals value chain through the implementation of a well-structured agreement.

An inadequately negotiated agreement could continue patterns of underdevelopment and dependency.

Generally, the initiative signifies a shift in Africa’s role, moving from a passive supplier to an active negotiator.

African nations have a unique opportunity to reshape their economic path as global demand for critical minerals keeps rising.

The worldwide search for critical minerals has entered a new phase with Kenya’s $62.4 billion tender at Mrima Hill.

The nation is positioned at the intersection of opportunity and risk, as both the United States and China compete for influence.

Not only will the outcome depend on the tender winner, but also on Kenya’s ability to enforce its regulations, structure the partnership, and protect its national interests.

Kenya’s most valuable asset in this emerging geopolitical contest might not be its minerals but its ability to negotiate strategically for the future of Kenyans, rather than favouring a small number of influential individuals.

Mrima Hill has the potential to serve as a model for resource-driven development in Africa if managed strategically.

It risks becoming another chapter in the long history of external powers influencing the continent’s destiny if poorly managed. The stakes are higher than ever, and the world is watching this event.