Liberia Security Briefing: Concerns Raised Ahead of Upcoming U.S. Summit

Executive Summary

Ahead of President Joseph Boakai’s scheduled participation in a high-level U.S.-Africa summit in Washington, D.C. (July 9–11, 2025), concerns have emerged within the diaspora and civil society about the potential for Liberia to enter into extractive resource agreements under uncertain or non-transparent conditions. A Canada-based Liberian activist has publicly warned against what he termed “bogus” mineral contracts that could emerge from negotiations conducted without proper public oversight or strategic alignment with Liberia’s long-term interests.

African Security Analysis (ASA) offers an independent view of the security and governance risks linked to such resource negotiations, highlighting the structural vulnerabilities associated with opaque mineral deals in fragile governance environments.

Background

President Boakai will join a select group of African leaders in Washington, D.C. for discussions on economic cooperation, regional security, and critical mineral partnerships. The summit is expected to include bilateral and multilateral discussions centred on resource extraction, infrastructure development, and trade.

In the lead-up to this summit, calls have emerged from Liberian voices in the diaspora urging the president to approach any mineral-related negotiations with caution. Concerns focus on the lack of domestic consultation and the potential for exploitative or unbalanced contracts that prioritize external actors over national development priorities.

Structural Risks of Opaque Resource Agreements

Mineral-rich states with weak regulatory mechanisms often face risks of entering into extractive agreements that do not benefit the broader population. The absence of public consultation, parliamentary oversight, or civil society involvement increases the likelihood of deals that disproportionately favour multinational interests or domestic elites. In Liberia’s case, this could reinforce historical patterns of unequal wealth distribution and economic exclusion.

Historical Context and Strategic Mistrust

Liberia’s historical alignment with major powers has often been based more on geopolitical convenience than genuine development partnership. Past crises revealed the limitations of international solidarity, raising scepticism around sudden strategic interest in Liberia’s critical minerals. Such dynamics require a measured and sovereign-centred approach to diplomatic negotiations—especially those involving long-term resource control.

Security and Governance Implications

Poorly negotiated resource contracts can have wide-ranging security repercussions. These include:

• Erosion of public trust in government institutions
• Social unrest tied to perceived exploitation or exclusion
• Increased corruption and rent-seeking behaviour within political elites
• Long-term instability in mining regions and adjacent communities

Geoeconomic Considerations

There is growing international competition over access to rare earth elements and strategic minerals. Liberia’s bauxite, iron ore, and potential lithium reserves place it in a sensitive position within this global competition. Without strong domestic negotiation frameworks, Liberia could find itself locked into agreements that limit its future policy autonomy or revenue options.

Independent Observations of ASA Analyst

From an analytical standpoint, this moment presents Liberia with a strategic test. The engagement at the U.S. summit may offer short-term diplomatic or economic gains, but the real test lies in how the country manages its resource governance. Any extractive deal concluded in Washington—especially outside the boundaries of public accountability—would raise serious governance red flags.

While ASA does not issue recommendations to state authorities, analysts note that historically, countries that adopt transparent, consultative, and law-based frameworks for resource negotiation tend to experience more stable long-term development outcomes. In contrast, those that allow ad hoc or politically driven agreements often face recurring cycles of instability, community conflict, and governance crises.

Conclusion

Liberia stands at a critical diplomatic and developmental crossroads. The outcomes of the upcoming Washington summit could shape not just its resource landscape, but also its political legitimacy and social contract. From a security analysis perspective, ensuring that natural resource governance aligns with national sovereignty, inclusiveness, and long-term development goals remains central to Liberia’s stability and resilience in the years ahead.