The decision by the Government of Liberia (GoL) to grant HPX (High Power Exploration) access to the national railway, while ArcelorMittal Liberia (AML) continues to hold an active Mineral Development Agreement (MDA) with the government, raises several questions about national interest and strategic priorities.
At the heart of the matter is whether the GoL’s actions serve Liberia’s long-term goals, or whether they prioritize foreign interests over national interests or those of its own people.
Granting HPX access to the railway while AML MDA is still in effect creates a climate of uncertainty for current and potential investors.
AML’s existing agreement with the government represents not only a legal commitment but also an implicit promise to prioritize the company’s expansion and its resultant contributions to Liberia’s economy.
While it is true that the railway is a state asset, by signing an access agreement with HPX, GoL appears to compromise the spirit, if not the letter, of its ongoing agreement with AML. This raises critical questions:
• How does GoL justify entering into a new, potentially conflicting arrangement while its prior commitments remain unresolved?
• What assurances exist to prevent operational or legal clashes between AML’s expansion plans and HPX’s anticipated access?
The optics of this new agreement suggest that foreign iron ore shipments are being prioritized over Liberian developmental interests.
AML’s expansion is not merely a matter of corporate growth; it represents an opportunity for increased employment, local procurement, tax revenue, and infrastructural development.
This move may set a concerning precedent for future negotiations, signaling to both domestic and international actors that Liberia’s commitments are manipulable and that foreign pressure can yield preferential treatment—even at the expense of national development.
This perception could impede AML’s ability to finance future expansions, as investors may question the reliability of GoL’s assurances and the stability of their investments.
It is no secret that HPX has been mounting pressure, pushing GoL to sign this agreement, but not necessarily with Liberia’s broader interests at heart.
Rather than develop, the company’s strategy appears driven by the prospect of securing a lucrative deal, one that would enhance the value of the Guinean concession granted to HPX, thereby enabling it to “flip” the asset for significant profit.
In this regard, HPX’s persistent lobbying can be seen less as a commitment to contributing to Liberia’s long-term growth and more as a calculated move to maximize short-term gains, potentially at Liberia’s expense.
These developments suggest a troubling narrative: Liberia, despite being the landlord and custodian of its own resources and infrastructure, is at risk of being the net victim in a zero-sum game orchestrated by external actors.
The benefits accrued by HPX, facilitated by GoL’s acceptance, come at the cost of Liberia’s own interests and the aim of AML to expand and deepen its economic impact.
In conclusion, the GoL’s decision to sign a rail access agreement with HPX/Ivanhoe, while an existing agreement with a major investor remains unresolved, raises fundamental doubts.
Unless adjusted, this deal with HPX/Ivanhoe threatens to leave the nation at a disadvantage, undermining both sovereignty and future prosperity for the fleeting advantage of others.
