LIBERIA, A SMALL West African nation with outsized strategic importance, is once again at the center of a high-stakes geopolitical contest. But this time, the tools of engagement are not colonial gunboats or imperial mandates.
THEY ARE CONTRACTS, infrastructure deals, and foreign direct investment —with strings increasingly tied to global power struggles between democratic nations and authoritarian regimes. As Liberia stands at this critical juncture, the country must choose carefully the partners with whom it builds its economic future.
THAT DECISION WILL reverberate far beyond dollars and minerals — it will define Liberia’s long-term sovereignty, stability, and strategic alignment in an increasingly divided world.
AT THE CENTER of Liberia’s current conundrum lies a contest between two contrasting foreign investors: ArcelorMittal, a multinational steel company with a longstanding footprint in Liberia, and Ivanhoe Atlantic (formerly High Power Exploration, or HPX), a newer entrant whose financial lifeblood is increasingly intertwined with Chinese state-backed capital. The choice between these two models of engagement — transparent, accountable, and Western-backed versus opaque, unproven, and increasingly influenced by China — goes beyond economics. It cuts to the core of Liberia’s future as a sovereign and self-determining state.
HPX BURST ONTO the scene in 2019 with much fanfare, acquiring rights to the world-class Mount Nimba iron ore deposit, a high-grade reserve straddling the borders of Guinea and Liberia. This deposit, nicknamed the “caviar of iron ore,” is prized for its exceptional purity and high iron content — qualities that make it especially attractive to China, whose industrial engine runs on vast quantities of premium iron ore.
BUT BEHIND THE headlines and technical potential lies a more sobering reality that HPX is increasingly a vessel for Chinese strategic interests cloaked in Western branding.
HPX’s FOUNDER, Canadian-American mining magnate Robert Friedland, has long-standing financial ties with Chinese state entities. In his flagship venture, Ivanhoe Mines, roughly 40 percent of shares are held by Chinese firms, most notably CITIC Metal and Zijin Mining, both of which are aligned with the Chinese Communist Party. CITIC, a state-owned conglomerate, holds board representation and direct strategic influence in Friedland’s ventures.
THESE ASSOCIATIONS, while not illegal, are emblematic of China’s broader push to gain control over critical minerals and infrastructure worldwide — particularly in emerging economies where governance vulnerabilities can be exploited for strategic leverage.
INITIALLY MARKETED as a transformational infrastructure initiative, HPX’s so-called “Liberty Corridor” promised to build new transport links —railroads, deep-water ports, and energy infrastructure — connecting iron-rich regions in Guinea to the Liberian coastline.
YET YEARS AFTER its announcement, this grand vision remains largely illusory. No rails have been laid, no ports have been dredged, and the project’s once-touted financial partner — the Guma Group of South Africa — has all but vanished from public discourse. There have been no community consultations, no environmental studies, and no visible signs of construction.
INSTEAD OF BREAKING new ground, HPX has pivoted to a far more concerning strategy: seeking to take over the existing Yekepa-to-Buchanan rail corridor built and operated by ArcelorMittal. This railway, spanning hundreds of kilometers, represents one of the most significant private investments in Liberia’s postwar history.
ARCELORMITTAL HAS poured more than $2.5 billion into Liberia’s mining and logistics infrastructure since 2005, weathering two Ebola outbreaks, political instability, and fluctuating global markets—all while maintaining operations and investing in local development.
HPX, IN CONTRAST, has invested virtually nothing in Liberia’s infrastructure to date. Yet it now seeks to gain access to a railway it did not finance, build, or maintain. Such a move — if sanctioned by Liberia’s government — would set a troubling precedence that promises of future investment can override actual contributions, and that politically connected companies with external backing can bypass due process and seize strategic assets built by others.
EVEN MORE troubling is the wider geopolitical context. China’s approach to foreign investment, particularly through its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), is not just about economics. It is about influence, leverage, and long-term control.
ACROSS AFRICA and the Global South, Chinese-funded projects have often come with hidden costs: sovereign debt traps, control over key infrastructure, and diminished local autonomy. In countries such as Zambia and Sri Lanka, Chinese control over ports and power grids has raised alarms over creeping neo-colonialism.
THE CASE OF Djibouti is perhaps the most instructive. Initially framed as a commercial port development, China’s involvement evolved into its first overseas military base—a move that caught many international observers off guard. Djibouti is now a critical node in Beijing’s expanding military footprint across the Indo-Pacific and African theaters.
LIBERIA, WITH its Atlantic coastline and growing importance in the global minerals trade, could be next if Chinese-aligned entities secure control over its transport corridors.
THAT DANGER is not lost on the United States, Liberia’s oldest diplomatic ally and one of its most consistent partners. Over the past several years, the U.S. has recalibrated its Africa strategy to counter growing Chinese influence.
UNDER BOTH the Trump and Biden administrations, Washington has emphasized commercial diplomacy, infrastructure investment, and critical mineral partnerships as alternatives to opaque Chinese financing.
PROGRAMS LIKE Prosper Africa and the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) are designed to support African countries in building transparent, high-quality infrastructure projects that promote mutual growth without sacrificing sovereignty.
IN 2025, THE DFC expanded its footprint in Africa through major investments in strategic transport corridors such as the Lobito Corridor in Angola and the DRC—projects explicitly intended to counter China’s monopoly on global supply chains for critical minerals.
AT THE SAME time, the Biden administration’s Commercial Diplomacy Strategy has refocused U.S. embassies on facilitating trade, enabling American private sector investments, and discouraging exploitative foreign deals.
WITHIN THIS broader strategic landscape, Liberia plays an outsized role. As a coastal nation with rich iron ore reserves and a government eager for investment, Liberia could become either a model for transparent partnership or a cautionary tale of strategic vulnerability.
THE CHOICE of infrastructure partner —between a Western-regulated, proven investor like ArcelorMittal and an unproven, China-linked company like HPX—will speak volumes about Liberia’s broader alignment.
ARCELORMITTAL, WHILE CERTAINLY a profit-driven enterprise, has demonstrated a long-term commitment to Liberia. Beyond its economic footprint, the company has helped train a generation of Liberian engineers and miners, contributed significantly to national revenue through taxes and royalties, and supported local communities through education, healthcare, and infrastructure development. It operates under legal and regulatory scrutiny from both Liberia and international bodies—accountability mechanisms that are often absent in Chinese-backed projects.
HPX, BY CONTRAST, brings untested promises and complex financial entanglements that could one day place Liberia’s most strategic assets under indirect foreign control. If HPX’s proposal to take over the Yekepa-Buchanan railway is approved, it could set Liberia on a path of dependency — where decisions about infrastructure, exports, and even national security are influenced not by Monrovia, but by distant capitals and corporate boardrooms with strategic loyalties that lie elsewhere.
THIS IS NOT to reject all Chinese investment out of hand. China is a global economic powerhouse, and its role in Africa’s development cannot be ignored. But engagement must come on Liberia’s terms, with full transparency, enforceable legal protections, and clear sovereignty safeguards.
ANYTHING less is a gamble Liberia can ill afford.
AS LIBERIA WEIGHS its options, it must do so with clarity and caution. Strategic infrastructure is not just about moving goods — it is about moving power. It defines who controls economic flows, who sets the rules of trade, and who holds leverage in future crises.
IF LIBERIA GIVES away its corridors to entities with opaque backers and unclear motives, it risks surrendering more than just rail lines and ports. It risks compromising its independence.
THE NEXT CHAPTER in Liberia’s economic story is still being written. The nation’s leaders have a rare opportunity to chart a course based on proven partnerships, national interest, and long-term development. That means choosing investors who not only offer capital, but also align with Liberia’s democratic values, respect its sovereignty, and commit to building — not just extracting.
IN THE END, this is more than a mining contract or an infrastructure concession. It is a test of Liberia’s strategic resolve. The decisions made today will shape the country’s trajectory for generations to come.
IN THE CONTEST between short-term gain and long-term sovereignty, between secrecy and transparency, and between foreign control and national dignity, Liberia must choose not only wisely — but courageously.
