The Democratic Republic of the Congo has presented U.S. officials and the American people with a proposal: help bring security to the embattled central African country and, in return, receive access to valuable mineral deposits.

Given President Trump’s push for a minerals deal with Ukraine, the framing is a tactful move. While such an agreement could help undercut China’s domination in the minerals space, American leaders should ask if it is worth the risk it poses to U.S. service members and companies.

That nation has several key minerals that the U.S. identifies as “critical” due to their use in technologies ranging from smartphones to defense systems vital for national security. However, U.S. officials negotiating with Democratic Republic of the Congo should minimize the risks of a partnership, clearly define American mineral needs and explore possible alternatives to make sure that any deal is worth the cost.

Crucially, the preliminary Congolese proposal outlined several provisions that would almost certainly require the presence of American forces in the country. They would be needed to address the rapidly strengthening Rwandan-backed M23 rebellion, which recently captured two provincial capitals in the country’s far east and aims to topple the Congolese government.

To confront this threat, the initial Congolese offer envisions U.S. bases to protect “strategic resources,” and “security cooperation” with the U.S., replacing the role of 14,000 United Nations peacekeepers in the eastern region of the country.

Putting American forces in the Democratic Republic of the Congo would put service members at risk. There is a reason thousands of U.N. peacekeepers are already present.

This region of the country is highly insecure, and the Rwandan Army, one of the most effective and modern forces on the continent, is fighting alongside M23. Six U.N. peacekeepers and 14 South African troops were killed in fighting involving M23 earlier this year. The Islamic State

© The Hill