A window into what we’re reading at the Stimson Center’s Environmental Security Program

The Mining Town Funding Congo’s Rebels and Tech Giants (Reuters)

In April 2024, the M23 rebel group seized control of Rubaya, a mining town that produces 15% of the world’s coltan—a critical mineral worth used in mobile phones, computers, and aerospace components. Rebels imposed a parallel administration in the town, and placed a 15% tax on mineral traders that generates $800,000 monthly from levies. Thousands of impoverished miners in the town, however, still work 12-hour shifts in dangerous conditions earning just $5.15 per day.

This article is adapted from “Rare Earths and Realpolitik: Kachin Control, Chinese Calculus, and the Future of Mediation in Myanmar,” written by Amara Thiha for the Stimson Center.

As global powers race to secure critical minerals, Myanmar’s rare earths have emerged as both prize and flashpoint. Last week, Reuters reported that the Trump administration has been privately reviewing competing proposals to access Myanmar’s heavy rare earth minerals, including potential engagement with Myanmar’s military junta and direct negotiation with the Kachin Independence Army (KIA), an ethnic armed group that now controls key extraction sites. Since the February 2021 military coup, rare earth mining has surged in northern Kachin State near the Chinese border, where the KIA has seized highly valuable rare earth mines and a critical corridor in the global supply chain. What began as a local insurgency has evolved into resource-backed diplomacy, drawing in China, India, and now the United States.

In Myanmar’s resource-rich Kachin State, deforestation linked to illegal logging and mining has surged over the past decade. While the national government struggles to assert control, the Kachin Independence Organization (KIO)—a political organization seeking autonomy for Kachin State in Myanmar—has also stepped in to regulate land use, restrict timber harvests, and manage permits. These activities serve to conserve local ecosystems and extract revenue. KIO’s environmental governance is strategic, aiming to bolster civilian support and consolidate territorial control. It is also shaping how communities cope and adapt to climate change.

Around the world, conflict and environmental risks are on the rise – and they’re often connected in complex ways. In the past five years alone, the number of global conflicts has doubled. At the same time, human activity is pushing the planet beyond the ‘safe operating space’, increasing the risk of instability.

Researchers studying the links between conflict and environmental change have found that war and violence almost always harm the environment. But the reverse connection – whether environmental stress leads to conflict – is much harder to pin down. That’s because political systems, local institutions, and social dynamics often shape how environmental pressures play out.

Findings from recent studies suggest that sustainability and peace are positively correlated. In other words, the results suggest that peace and sustainability go hand in hand. If true, pursuing one could help achieve the other. But what if it’s not that simple?

In the wake of last week’s devastating floods in Central Texas, and with the 20th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina on the horizon, new data underscores a sobering trend: extreme weather events are becoming even more intense, more severe, and more frequent. At the same time, the very institutions and experts responsible for predicting and preparing for these rising threats are under threat themselves.

The Trump administration has significantly reduced or eliminated programs — like my former home, the Environmental Change and Security Program (ECSP) at the Wilson Center — that worked to address and communicate the climate challenges we face. Today, however, I’m pleased to announce that ECSP’s work, including the New Security Beat, has found a new home.

When Secretary of State Marco Rubio formally declared the “era” of USAID over on March 28, 2025, it represented an extraordinary sea change for US foreign aid deployed over the past six decades.

Yet the world has changed dramatically since the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) was established by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 in the middle of the Cold War. So, there is every reason to thoughtfully consider what foreign aid should look like today as we navigate an era of Great Power Competition (GPC).

“It seems like the news is always bad, right?” observed retired climate and atmospheric scientist James Kossin in a BBC interview last autumn.

Kossin was describing how climate change is weakening the wind shear patterns that have helped lessen the impacts of tropical cyclones in the United States. And, indeed, there is mounting evidence for his observation.

Syria finds itself at a crossroads. Faced with the imminent need to prevent a relapse into renewed short-term insecurity, its government also must start to develop longer-term strategies to support recovery.

Generating peace dividends for Syria’s embattled population requires confronting the ecological threats which currently undermine basic human security across the country. Nowhere do these threats emerge more prominently than in its agricultural sector. Ensuring that this essential sector lives up to its potential as an engine for economic stabilization and peace will require a set of targeted – and climate-sensitive – investments and interventions.