Most executives still treat geopolitics as something that happens to them.

A war breaks out. A tariff appears. A sanction is imposed. A supply chain fails.

The company reacts.

That mindset is becoming obsolete.

Subscribe

In Europe, regulators are gradually embedding geopolitical awareness into corporate governance, even if they rarely use the word "geopolitics." Supply chain due diligence (the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, or CSDDD), sanctions enforcement (the 2024 directive criminalizing breaches of EU restrictive measures), investment screening (the FDI Screening Regulation), critical infrastructure and cyber resilience (the Critical Entities Resilience Directive and NIS2), and financial-sector operational resilience (the Digital Operational Resilience Act, or DORA) all point in the same direction: companies are expected to understand the political environment in which they operate.

The United States has not gone nearly as far.

Yet the underlying principle is difficult to dispute.

If management has a duty to understand material risks and opportunities facing the enterprise, how can it ignore geopolitics?

A board would never accept a CFO saying, "We don't really follow interest rates."

A CEO would never tell investors, "We don't pay much attention to competitors."

Yet many globally exposed firms still have no systematic way of understanding how shifts in power, trade, regulation, conflict, technology policy, resource nationalism, or alliance structures affect their business.

This is increasingly difficult to defend.

The question is not whether geopolitics matters.

The question is whether management has an obligation to understand it.

For a shipping company, geopolitics affects routes, insurance costs, and market access.

For a technology company, it affects export controls, data flows, investment restrictions, and talent mobility.

For an industrial company, it affects energy costs, critical minerals, and manufacturing footprints.

For an investor, it affects valuation, capital allocation, and exit opportunities.

At some point, geopolitical ignorance starts to look less like a gap in expertise and more like a governance failure.

The irony is that many firms still place geopolitics inside risk functions.

That is where they look for threats.

But the greatest value often lies elsewhere.

Every geopolitical disruption creates winners and losers.

Every sanctions regime redirects capital.

Every trade barrier reshapes competitive dynamics.

Every shift in industrial policy creates new markets.

The firms that understand geopolitics earliest are often the firms that identify opportunity first.

Any debate about whether companies need geopolitical capability misses the point.

Today, boards and executive teams cannot credibly claim to be exercising proper stewardship without it.

Europe appears to be moving toward a regulatory answer.

The United States will likely continue to rely on market discipline.

Either way, the destination is the same.

In a world where geopolitics increasingly shapes enterprise value, understanding it is no longer a specialist activity.

It is becoming part of the duty of care.

Subscribe

On 2 June 2026, in Lusaka, the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa launched a roughly €15 million, five-year programme to strengthen critical-minerals value chains across six Southern African countries: the Democratic Republic of Congo, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Namibia and South Africa.

Funded by Germany and running through 2031, the initiative is framed in the language of value addition, industrialisation, job creation and the energy transition.

That description is accurate. It is also incomplete.

For executives responsible for supply chains, manufacturing footprints, energy strategy or geopolitical risk, the relevant fact is not the money. It is the institution spending it, and the direction the spend reveals.

What the ECA is, and why its involvement matters

The Economic Commission for Africa is worth understanding before the project is.

It is one of five regional commissions of the United Nations, established in 1958, headquartered in Addis Ababa and accountable to the continent’s member states. Its mandate is economic development, not security or diplomacy. Institutionally, it is a body that builds frameworks rather than chases headlines.

When an institution of that kind commits to mineral processing rather than mineral extraction, it is not making a bet on commodity prices. It is taking a position on where African governments intend to sit in a supply chain that the rest of the world has now decided is strategic.

The ECA is the same institution that helped establish the DRC-Zambia transboundary battery and electric-vehicle special economic zone alongside Afreximbank in 2025. This programme is continuous with that effort, not separate from it. The pattern matters more than the project itself. Africa’s development machinery is being directed, deliberately, towards the midstream.

The minerals, and the assumption that is dying

The region holds many of the inputs required for the energy transition.

Zimbabwe has become a major lithium producer. South Africa dominates manganese and the platinum-group metals. Zambia remains one of the world’s largest copper producers. The Democratic Republic of Congo controls the majority of global cobalt production. Namibia is positioning itself around uranium, rare earths and green-hydrogen-linked supply chains.

For two decades, multinational firms operated on a simple assumption: these supply chains would become more globalised, more efficient and more integrated. Extract where costs were lowest. Process where costs were lowest. Ship where demand existed.

That assumption is breaking down.

Governments no longer treat critical minerals as ordinary commodities. They treat them as strategic assets, and increasingly behave accordingly. Export controls, local-processing requirements, investment screening mechanisms and industrial policy are all designed to capture more value domestically.

At least thirteen African countries have introduced mineral-export restrictions since 2023. Malawi banned raw mineral exports outright in 2025. Historically, much of this material left the continent in raw or semi-processed form. Across the region, political leaders have concluded that this model delivers too little value to producing countries.

The ECA programme is the multilateral expression of that conclusion.

Why this is now a great-power question

The development framing leaves out a crucial piece of context.

The reason value addition in Southern Africa is suddenly attracting coordinated international attention is that the midstream, processing and refining, has become one of the most concentrated chokepoints in the global economy.

Much of that concentration sits in China.

China refines roughly 70 per cent of the world’s strategically important minerals and produces close to 90 per cent of high-performance rare-earth magnets. That concentration is not merely an industrial fact. It is geopolitical leverage.

In 2025, Beijing demonstrated exactly how much leverage it possesses.

In April, China imposed export controls on seven heavy rare-earth elements. Western and allied manufacturers found themselves scrambling within weeks. In October, Beijing went further, asserting licensing authority over foreign-made products containing as little as 0.1 per cent Chinese-origin rare earths. The approach closely mirrored the extraterritorial logic Washington has long used in export controls.

The measures were subsequently suspended following understandings reached at the APEC summit in Busan.

The leverage was demonstrated, then holstered. It did not disappear.

At the same time, China has expanded upstream across Africa. Chinese firms have acquired or secured mining interests across the continent, including lithium, copper and rare-earth assets. One Chinese electric-vehicle manufacturer alone secured interests in six African lithium mines to support future battery production.

Washington has responded differently, relying more heavily on alliances, investment partnerships and coordinated supply-chain frameworks with countries such as Australia and Japan.

The competition has become structural.

Southern Africa, holding substantial reserves while simultaneously attempting to build processing capacity, increasingly finds itself at the centre of that competition.

This is what the ECA programme quietly changes.

Every tonne of cobalt, lithium or manganese processed in Lusaka, Lubumbashi or Harare rather than exported in raw form shifts a small portion of the value chain away from existing chokepoints.

That is a development outcome.

It is also a geopolitical one.

The two are becoming increasingly difficult to separate.

The European angle: the multilateralists are playing a different game

It is worth noting who is financing this programme.

Germany is providing the funding through its International Climate Initiative.

That is not incidental.

It may be the clearest indication of how Europe intends to compete in the critical-minerals race, and its approach differs markedly from both Washington and Beijing.

China seeks influence through ownership and control of assets.

The United States seeks influence through alliances, subsidies and preferred supply arrangements.

Europe is increasingly attempting to shape the ecosystem itself.

It is funding multilateral development channels, embedding environmental and social standards into supply chains and positioning itself as the partner that helps producing countries industrialise rather than simply extract.

The same logic is visible in the EU-South Africa Clean Trade and Investment Partnership launched in 2025, which explicitly seeks to support domestic processing capacity rather than continued reliance on raw-material exports.

Brussels and Berlin appear to be betting that producing countries will favour partners willing to support industrialisation and local value creation.

Whether that strategy succeeds remains uncertain.

That it is now being pursued with public money is not.

For firms sourcing from the region, the European approach brings both obligations and advantages. It implies greater environmental, social and governance requirements throughout the supply chain. It may also produce relationships that are more durable because they are built around industrial partnerships rather than purely extractive arrangements.

What this means at the board level

For companies seeking to diversify critical-minerals supply chains, Southern Africa presents genuine opportunity.

The past five years have demonstrated the fragility of concentrated supply networks. Pandemic disruptions, Red Sea shipping attacks, Taiwan Strait tensions and rare-earth restrictions have all reinforced the same lesson.

Concentrated supply is fragile supply.

Southern Africa offers part of the solution.

But diversification does not eliminate geopolitical risk.

It changes its character.

Companies entering these ecosystems inherit evolving regulatory regimes, infrastructure constraints, local-content requirements and political pressure to maximise domestic benefit.

A lithium project that appears attractive today may face export restrictions tomorrow.

A processing facility may only remain viable if regional trade arrangements hold together.

A supplier relationship may depend as much on geopolitical alignment as on price.

What appears to be a procurement decision increasingly becomes a question of political economy.

That makes it a board-level issue rather than simply a sourcing issue.

The old model optimised for efficiency.

The emerging model optimises for resilience.

The ECA programme, Chinese acquisitions, American supply-chain frameworks and European industrial partnerships all point in the same direction.

The transition is already underway.

Enterprise Geopolitics takeaway: The most important supply-chain question is no longer simply Where do we source? It is How exposed are we to the political and economic objectives of the jurisdictions that control strategic resources, and to the great-power competition increasingly being fought through them?

In Southern Africa, China, the United States and Europe are each attempting to shape the answer. The ECA’s new programme suggests African governments increasingly intend to shape it as well.

The firms that map that competition early will navigate it.

The firms that read this as a mining story will be surprised by it.

Patrick Fruchet
Fruchet Consulting • Enterprise Geopolitics
patrick@fruchet.com | www.fruchet.com

Subscribe

For the first time in its modern history, Germany has failed to win election to the United Nations Security Council.

Subscribe

The numbers at the UN Security Council membership vote today were not close. Portugal secured 134 votes. Austria received 131. Germany managed only 104. In the opaque world of UN diplomacy, where defeats are usually disguised through negotiated withdrawals and carefully choreographed regional agreements, that qualifies as a rout.

Berlin will insist that little has changed. Germany remains Europe’s largest economy. It remains one of the UN’s largest financial contributors. It remains a leading supporter of Ukraine and one of the most consequential powers in the European Union.

All true.

Yet this week’s vote matters precisely because it reveals something that is often obscured in discussions of international politics: material power and political legitimacy are not the same thing.

For decades Germany has argued that it deserves a larger role in global governance. Its case seemed straightforward. The country contributes vast sums to the UN system. It is a stable democracy. It rarely pursues a unilateral foreign policy. Unlike some great powers, it is generally regarded as a supporter rather than a critic of multilateral institutions.

This argument has underpinned Germany’s long-running campaign for a permanent seat on a reformed Security Council. If the composition of the Council is supposed to reflect contemporary realities rather than the settlement of 1945, Germany has always appeared an obvious candidate.

This week’s vote suggests many countries disagree.

Or, perhaps more accurately, it suggests that many countries no longer see Germany in quite the way Germany sees itself.

That distinction matters.

The Security Council election was not a referendum on Germany’s economic strength. Nobody disputes that. Nor was it a judgment on German administrative competence. The country remains a highly capable state.

The vote was instead a judgment about political alignment and diplomatic influence.

The modern UN is often described as an institution. In practice it is also a marketplace. States trade support, build coalitions, signal grievances and reward relationships. Elections are one of the few moments when those preferences become visible.

Because the ballot is secret, governments can express views they would never articulate publicly.

The result is often revealing.

The most obvious explanation lies in the changing political geography of the international system.

For much of the post-Cold War era Germany occupied a comfortable position. It was viewed as a major Western power but not an overly assertive one. It benefited from a broadly favourable international environment in which economic integration, globalisation and multilateral cooperation enjoyed considerable support.

That world is fading.

The defining geopolitical reality of the past decade has not been the emergence of a new order. It has been the fragmentation of the old one.

The institutions built during the late twentieth century continue to function, but they increasingly struggle to command universal legitimacy. States that once accepted Western leadership as a fact of international life have become more willing to challenge it.

The result is not a coherent alternative order. It is a more contested one.

Germany has found itself caught in the middle of this transition.

From Berlin’s perspective, support for Ukraine represents a defence of fundamental principles. Many governments outside Europe agree. Others do not. Some view the conflict primarily through the lens of great-power rivalry. Others regard it as a European problem. Still others object to what they perceive as selective Western concern for sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The debate surrounding Gaza has intensified these tensions.

Germany’s support for Israel is rooted in history, domestic politics and strategic calculation. It is unlikely to change. Yet across much of Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East, Berlin’s position has generated significant criticism.

Whether that criticism alone explains the Security Council result is impossible to know. Secret ballots reveal outcomes, not motivations.

What can be said with confidence is that Germany’s diplomatic standing appears weaker than many observers assumed.

That should concern Berlin.

It should also concern anyone who believes that influence can be measured simply through economic indicators, military expenditure or institutional position.

One of the enduring misconceptions of international affairs is that power automatically produces influence. Sometimes it does. Often it does not.

Influence depends on relationships, perceptions and legitimacy. These are harder to quantify and easier to lose.

The lesson extends well beyond governments.

Over the past several years companies have become accustomed to thinking about geopolitics primarily through the lens of disruption. The questions are familiar. Will a war interrupt supply chains? Will sanctions affect operations? Will tariffs increase costs? Will political instability threaten investments?

These are important questions.

They are not the only ones.

Increasingly, geopolitical risk is less about dramatic events than about shifts in political alignment. Organisations often discover these shifts only after they have become visible in decisions, regulations, votes or market behaviour.

By that point the adjustment is usually more expensive.

The Germany vote offers a useful illustration. Nothing significant happened this week. No government collapsed. No conflict erupted. No treaty was signed.

Yet a great deal of information was revealed.

A country widely regarded as one of the pillars of the international system discovered that its support among the broader UN membership was substantially weaker than expected.

That is not an event. It is a signal.

The distinction is important.

Events dominate headlines because they are visible. Signals are easier to overlook because they emerge gradually. They often appear insignificant in isolation. Their significance becomes clear only when viewed as part of a broader pattern.

The broader pattern is difficult to miss.

Across international institutions, voting behaviour, trade arrangements and diplomatic forums, the centre of gravity is shifting. The assumptions that governed international politics during the three decades after the Cold War are becoming less reliable.

States are diversifying relationships. They are hedging between competing powers. They are pursuing greater strategic autonomy. Many are becoming less willing to align automatically with Western preferences.

This does not mean the West is collapsing. Nor does it mean a rival bloc is taking control.

It means the political environment is becoming more fragmented, more transactional and more difficult to navigate.

Germany’s defeat is best understood in that context.

The immediate consequences are limited. Germany will not sit on the Security Council. Austria and Portugal will.

The larger consequences are reputational.

For years Germany has presented itself as a bridge between North and South, developed and developing, established and emerging powers. This week’s vote raises questions about whether that bridge remains as sturdy as Berlin believes.

The irony is that Germany remains indispensable to many of the institutions in which these debates occur. It continues to provide resources, expertise and political support. It remains one of the most important stakeholders in the multilateral system.

Yet indispensability and popularity are not the same thing.

The lesson from New York is therefore not that Germany has become weak.

It has not.

The lesson is that the international environment has changed more rapidly than many policymakers realised.

In geopolitics, the most consequential developments are often not the ones that dominate the news cycle. They are the ones that expose a shift already underway.

This week’s Security Council election did not create a new reality.

It revealed one.

Subscribe

The United Arab Emirates walked out of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries on April 28, 2026. Effective May 1. No consultation with Saudi Arabia. No transitional period. Fifty-nine years of membership, terminated in a press release.

SLB — formerly Schlumberger, the name many in the industry still use — is the world’s largest oilfield services company. It generated $35.7 billion in revenue in 2025. Its Middle East franchise accounts for approximately $8.5 billion of that, or roughly 24% of total consolidated revenue. The UAE has been its fastest-growing country within that market. The Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, known as ADNOC, is not simply a client relationship. It is a structural partnership — a 30% equity stake in the Turnwell unconventional joint venture, an artificial intelligence platform called AiPSO already deployed across eight ADNOC fields and committed to all 25 by 2027, and more than 85 years of operational presence in the Gulf. When the UAE removes the quota ceiling on ADNOC’s production ambitions, that is not background noise for SLB. It is a direct operating environment change in the company’s most strategically embedded market.

GeoBull / GeoBear is the analytical format we use to work through exactly this kind of event. For each edition, we take a named public company and a named geopolitical trigger and build a structured two-sided debate — arguments for why the geopolitical setup creates upside, resilience, or competitive advantage, and five for why the same setup creates exposure, margin pressure, or strategic constraint. Every argument is sourced from open material: Securities and Exchange Commission filings, earnings call transcripts, primary policy documents, and official company releases. Disciplined reading of what firms disclose, and what they conspicuously do not. The full report on SLB, five arguments on each side, eight dated watch items with named decision triggers, and a CGO Read that identifies the governance gaps the board should be examining now, is available as a formatted PDF download.

The question is not whether SLB benefits from the UAE OPEC exit. The question is when, through which mechanism, and at what cost to the rest of its regional franchise. Because the same event that unlocks ADNOC’s production ramp also suppresses the oil prices that Saudi Arabia needs to sustain its own upstream spending, and Saudi Arabia is SLB’s largest single country exposure in the Middle East, one that contracted sharply in 2025 and has not recovered. The cartel cohesion that OPEC+ provided also kept Iraq, Kazakhstan, and Russia in relative supply discipline. The UAE departure weakens that discipline for everyone. If OPEC+ compliance erodes broadly, the resulting price environment compresses upstream capital expenditure budgets across SLB’s entire international franchise, not just in the Gulf.

And there is a more immediate problem. The Strait of Hormuz remains the binding constraint on every barrel ADNOC can now legally produce above quota. Tankers cannot transit freely. SLB’s first-quarter 2026 Middle East and Asia revenue fell 10% to $2.69 billion, driven by force majeure in Qatar, security shutdowns in Iraq, and offshore production constraints across the region, none of which the OPEC announcement resolves. The production unlock is real. Its timeline is logistics-gated, not policy-gated.

This is the analytical tension that makes SLB worth examining closely right now. There is a genuine bull case, structural, evidence-based, and grounded in disclosed contract relationships and financial data. There is an equally genuine bear case, also structural, also evidence-based, and pointing in the opposite direction through different channels.

Subscribe now

Full report:

SBL x UAE-OPEC report