Read the full interview with Major General Bill Crane (Ret.) on Spik.kz in Kazakh, English and Russian.
Dear Mr. General, how do you assess the current strategic importance of the critical minerals possessed by the Central Asian countries for US industrial and defense interests in the face of growing global competition in this area?
The demand for such minerals, compared to current levels, is projected to triple by 2030. For rare earth elements, this growth will be even higher – sevenfold by 2040. Given this dynamic, Central Asia and its natural resources will be of great importance throughout the 21st century. However, the key is not extraction, but processing. If Kazakhstan continues to invest in processing capacity or form partnerships to develop it, its strategic value will increase exponentially – both in terms of its own economy and in ensuring the stability of global supply chains.
What are the main obstacles preventing the United States and its allies from establishing closer cooperation with Kazakhstan in the extraction and processing of rare and rare earth elements?
The main challenge is building long-term trust. Historically, Kazakhstan has been close to Russia and China. However, your government's decision to comply with the sanctions imposed after Russia's invasion of Ukraine was a strong signal that its foreign policy can be independent of its neighbors' positions. One tool for further building trust is the C5+1 platform, which has been used for regional cooperation for almost a decade, and cooperation on minerals is one of its key pillars. This mechanism helps ensure predictable and systematic work.
Joint business activities also help build trust. According to the State Department, US direct investment in Kazakhstan (primarily in the oil, gas, and mining sectors) will exceed $40 billion by 2025. As the United States continues to diversify its supply chains away from China, Kazakhstan is well-positioned to become a key partner.
How do you assess the influence of China and Russia in Kazakhstan's mineral sector, and how might this impact broader Western engagement? Can the US and its partners realistically build alternative supply chains involving Kazakhstan without provoking a geopolitical backlash from regional powers?
The world has become more competitive today. When China restricts the export of critical minerals and other resources essential to modern life, this only strengthens the resolve of the US and its allies to build alternative supply chains. That is why President Trump is entering into new supply agreements for such materials with countries whose interests align with those of the US.
As a businessman, he advocates for fair trade that will end the practice of using key resources as a tool of pressure and dumping, which destroys entire industries. Ultimately, the government of Kazakhstan will have to decide with whom to build trust and cooperation. For too long, the US and its allies have allowed one country to threaten their technology and national security. Kazakhstan's leaders should view the world through the same lens: unfair trade practices cannot continue to jeopardize entire industries.
What lessons could Washington learn from past attempts to diversify sources of strategic minerals—for example, in Africa or South America—and apply them to Central Asia?
The main lesson, particularly from the African experience, is that stability is as important as geology. The United States has lost access to resources in regions where political instability or regime change have derailed long-term projects. If the United States is going to invest abroad on a large scale, it needs to clearly understand what happens to projects in both favorable and crisis periods. Future agreements should include clear terms and safeguards. This approach protects both sides and encourages long-term, responsible partnerships.
In your opinion, what practical steps could build trust and create the conditions for sustainable cooperation between American companies and local participants in the Kazakh mining industry?
Companies seek predictability and strive to reduce risks. Here are some practical steps:
First. Transparent regulatory requirements and clear, fast approval deadlines. Bureaucratic barriers and inconsistent application of regulations create tension.
Second, the availability of English-language versions of regulations will eliminate misunderstandings and create a level playing field for small, innovative US companies.
Third. Establish a stabilization clause for large investment projects to ensure the security of investments. If instability or corruption undermines a project, financial sanctions or compensatory measures should be provided.
Fourth. Minimize risks through targeted incentives and co-financing of large projects. A Kazakh-American investment commission on critical minerals could be created to evaluate projects, independent of Russian and Chinese influence.
Fifth. Invest in the local workforce to create a cohort of qualified and reliable specialists. Unlike the Chinese model in Africa, where companies bring their personnel and leave no industrial legacy, joint training and employment benefits both sides.
In this way, Kazakhstan can reduce risks and attract more partners, ensuring predictability and fairness, while the United States can contribute technology, investment, and guaranteed procurement. This is how a strong and reliable partnership is formed.
