On wednesday, opposition groups in Colombia have expressed their rejection of a strategic memorandum of understanding—signed over a month ago between Abelardo De la Espriella and the United States government—warning of potential socioeconomic, environmental, and territorial implications for the country, while also questioning the scope of the pact.

RELATED:

New Era in U.S.-Colombia Relations: Marco Rubio and De la Espriella Sign Strategic Deals

The criticism centers on a potential extractive mining project targeting strategic minerals; according to the opposition, the exploitation of these resources would negatively affect ecosystems and communities located in the Amazon, the Pacific region, and parts of the Caribbean.

Senator Carolina Corcho, of the Historic Pact (in spanish Pacto Histórico) coalition, argued that the agreement subordinates national sovereignty to an extractive mining and energy model designed to serve U.S. industry.

According to the lawmaker, the document reportedly includes provisions for streamlining permits for extractive mining companies, the handover of geological maps, and granting the U.S. government prior knowledge of planned sales in Colombia to facilitate its decision-making processes.

The opposition has characterized the agreement as mercantilist, criticizing the fact that it was finalized without the participation of Colombian civil society—a group that asserts its right to have a say in how its lands are used.

¡No vamos a permitir que regalen nuestra soberanía a espaldas del país!

La administración de @ABDELAESPRIELLA firmó a oscuras un memorando que le entrega a EE. UU. el control de nuestras tierras raras y minerales estratégicos, poniendo en riesgo a nuestras comunidades campesinas… pic.twitter.com/Oel6iYraPk

— Carolina Corcho (@carolinacorcho) October 28, 2026

The text reads, “We will not allow them to give away our sovereignty behind the country’s back! The administration of @ABDELAESPRIELLA signed a memorandum in the dark that hands over to the United States control of our rare earths and strategic minerals, putting our peasant and ancestral communities at risk. Colombia’s wealth must be respected! Watch the full interview and the details of this complaint on @TeleSUR: http://youtu.be/d0pxJpb7sZY?si=ZnJ_szg_QyUlmO6J

Critics warn that the affected territories contain lithium, nickel, uranium, and copper—resources essential for the manufacture of mobile phones, computers, microprocessors, radar systems, guided missiles, and defense equipment. These materials can also be used for military purposes.

According to the allegations, a large portion of these resources would be extracted from the Amazon, the Pacific, and parts of the Caribbean—regions that hold extensive deposits of rare earths and strategic minerals. Most of these areas are inhabited by Afro-descendant, Indigenous, and peasant (rural farming) communities, which further compounds the concerns raised by the opposition.

Colombian analyst Ricardo Vargas noted that these territories possess a social sensitivity, which is why communities tend to mobilize when faced with risks to their land, water, air, and biodiversity. Vargas also pointed to measures aimed at containing social protest and warned of the presence of armed groups that illegally access these resources.

According to the allegations, the executive branch is clearing protected territories to allow for the entry of foreign entities and the exploitation of resources. The opposition claims that the document bypasses requirements for prior consultation and environmental permits, effectively placing the country’s geological and mining map at the disposal of the U.S. economy and American corporations.

Meanwhile, the executive branch has stated that the memorandum is non-binding—an argument the opposition views as an attempt to evade constitutional obligations and the mandatory review process by the Congress of the Republic.

Opposition groups have drawn parallels to the situation during the administration of Álvaro Uribe Vélez, specifically regarding the presence of military bases in the country.

A productive day in Colombia, building on the enduring friendship between our two nations.

Grateful for the warm hospitality shown throughout today's visit. pic.twitter.com/UoxYnFrfem

— Secretary Marco Rubio (@SecRubio) September 8, 2026

The memorandum was signed on September 8, 2026, in Barranquilla, during a visit by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The instrument establishes a framework for cooperation to secure supply chains for the mining and processing of critical minerals and rare earth elements.

According to official information, the agreement includes provisions for financing, support for geological mapping, and the streamlining of administrative procedures for extraction and processing projects. The Colombian Foreign Ministry maintains that such memoranda are non-binding and that they respect both national legislation and state sovereignty.

At the heart of this debate lies the tension between bilateral cooperation, foreign investment, and the protection of national sovereignty, strategic resources, and the rights of local communities.

A dispute over conflicting versions of a provision in Colombia’s 2027 national budget has raised questions about the bill’s legislative validity. Senator Esmeralda Hernández says the Senate and House of Representatives approved different versions of Article 65 but failed to… pic.twitter.com/kNlFunNq1o

— teleSUR English (@telesurenglish) October 21, 2026

Rep. Julia Letlow introduced the Know Your Risk Act to direct the Department of Health and Human Services to create a universal breast cancer risk assessment tool.

Rep. Julia Letlow introduced the Know Your Risk Act to direct the Department of Health and Human Services to create a universal breast cancer risk assessment tool.

Current and former leaders at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) on Wednesday advised Medicare beneficiaries to pay close attention to their options this year upon reenrolling in plans, as major changes in recent years have only made the landscape more complex. Speaking at The Hill’s “Bang for Your Buck: Get the Most…

Current and former leaders at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) on Wednesday advised Medicare beneficiaries to pay close attention to their options this year upon reenrolling in plans, as major changes in recent years have only made the landscape more complex. Speaking at The Hill’s “Bang for Your Buck: Get the Most…

On Monday, the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement did something a defense treaty is not usually built to do. Its members went to Tehran to talk. Saudi Defense Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman, Pakistan’s Field Marshal Asim Munir and Turkey’s intelligence chief Ibrahim Kalın met President Masoud Pezeshkian and Supreme National Security Council Secretary Mohsen Rezaei. […]

The post The Mecca pact goes to Tehran. Can it keep the region out of another war? appeared first on Asia Times.

Gene Simmons of KISS fame is urging the music world to get on board with artificial intelligence. The “Rock and Roll All Nite” singer was asked about his stance on AI on NewsNation’s “The Hill with Blake Burman” on Tuesday, and whether the technology will be “good or bad” for music. The Hill and NewsNation…

Gene Simmons of KISS fame is urging the music world to get on board with artificial intelligence. The “Rock and Roll All Nite” singer was asked about his stance on AI on NewsNation’s “The Hill with Blake Burman” on Tuesday, and whether the technology will be “good or bad” for music. The Hill and NewsNation…

With a crucial EU–UK summit approaching, London is seeking assurances that British manufacturers will not be disadvantaged by Europe’s new industrial policies. The dispute exposes a wider problem: how closely Britain must align with Brussels to preserve access to European supply chains.

Britain and the European Union are attempting to resolve an increasingly consequential dispute over European industrial policy, as proposed rules favouring domestically manufactured goods threaten to complicate the economic relationship that London has spent much of the past year trying to rebuild.

Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said on 27 October that the two sides were making progress towards addressing concerns surrounding the proposed Made in Europe requirements.

Speaking to Sky News, Reynolds said the governments were “finding a way through” the disagreement, although the precise terms of any compromise remain uncertain.

The negotiations come ahead of the EU–UK summit scheduled for 20 November, when Prime Minister Andy Burnham is due to meet European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa.

For British manufacturers, the immediate issue is whether political promises of closer cooperation can prevent new economic barriers from emerging.

When industrial policy becomes trade policy

The dispute centres on the European Commission’s Industrial Accelerator Act, proposed in March.

The legislation would introduce European-origin and low-carbon requirements into public procurement and certain government support schemes covering strategic industries.

Among the sectors affected are steel, cement, aluminium, automotive manufacturing and technologies associated with the energy transition.

Brussels argues that such measures are necessary to strengthen European manufacturing and reduce dependence on overseas suppliers, particularly in industries exposed to competition from China.

The economic difficulty is that European industrial production does not stop at the EU’s external borders.

British manufacturers supply components, materials and specialist engineering services to European factories, while many UK production facilities rely on parts and technologies imported from the continent.

Automotive manufacturing illustrates the problem.

Vehicles assembled in Britain frequently contain components produced in several EU countries. Equally, European automotive manufacturers incorporate British-made parts into their own production.

If eligibility for subsidies or public contracts depends increasingly on where products and components originate, companies could face incentives to reorganise supply chains.

The question is therefore not merely whether British products can enter the European market, but whether they will qualify for the same industrial support arrangements as competing European products.

France and Germany disagree

The dispute has exposed differences among EU governments.

As EU Today reported earlier this month, France has argued for a restrictive interpretation of European origin requirements, while Germany has favoured a broader approach allowing certain trusted trading partners to participate.

Berlin’s position reflects the interests of industries whose production networks extend beyond the EU, including manufacturers operating in Britain.

According to reporting on the negotiations, France and Germany have discussed a potential compromise under which Britain might receive preferential treatment if it aligns with European tariffs on Chinese goods.

Such an arrangement would have implications extending beyond manufacturing.

It would involve coordination over trade policy towards China, an area in which Britain currently retains independent decision-making authority.

No agreement has been finalised, and any legislative compromise would require approval through the EU’s institutional procedures.

Burnham’s broader European calculation

For Burnham’s government, the industrial disagreement coincides with a wider attempt to redefine relations with Brussels.

The forthcoming summit is expected to concentrate on practical agreements covering agricultural and food trade, emissions trading and temporary mobility arrangements for young people.

A sanitary and phytosanitary agreement could reduce inspections and documentation requirements for certain food products moving between Britain and the EU.

Closer coordination between emissions trading systems could also reduce complications created by different carbon-pricing regimes.

However, these initiatives do not resolve the wider question of Britain’s relationship with the European single market.

Burnham has indicated that he intends to open a broader discussion about future options, while maintaining Labour’s existing commitments against rejoining the single market, customs union or restoring general free movement during the current parliamentary term.

Reynolds has acknowledged that repeated changes in EU policy create uncertainty for British companies operating across the Channel.

The price of industrial cooperation

The underlying difficulty is structural.

Britain seeks the benefits of close industrial integration while maintaining the independence acquired through Brexit. The EU, meanwhile, is increasingly using common industrial rules, subsidies and procurement preferences to pursue economic-security objectives.

These priorities are not necessarily incompatible, but reconciling them may require new arrangements governing regulatory alignment, product origin and relations with third countries.

As EU Today previously examined, London’s request to be treated as a trusted industrial partner has already become part of the broader political negotiations.

The November summit may establish a framework for resolving some immediate concerns.

It will not, however, eliminate the fundamental problem facing British manufacturers: future decisions taken in Brussels can materially affect their competitiveness, even though Britain no longer participates directly in making those decisions.

As artificial intelligence technologies grow ever more powerful, so do the risks they pose and with them the urgency of regulating AI. In July 2026, OpenAI’s advanced models hacked into AI company Hugging Face’s systems during internal cybersecurity evaluations by communicating through unauthorized channels and working around safeguards developers had imposed on the models. In […]

The post How to regulate AI? Follow the harm appeared first on Asia Times.

Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee released in July an interim staff report accusing South Korea of “discriminatory attacks on American-owned businesses.” Seoul’s “practices include coercive investigation tactics, overly burdensome regulatory requirements, and massive fines and penalties intended to punish American businesses and make it harder for them to effectively compete against Korean companies,” the […]

The post South Korea’s rich lobbying spree isn’t paying off in DC appeared first on Asia Times.