Peru goes to the polls, and the world holds its breath. Not out of democratic solidarity, but because of copper. The Andean nation, a cornerstone of the global copper supply, is convulsing with insecurity, corruption, and a political class that seems determined to re-enact the terminal decline of the Roman Republic. For Britain, which fancies itself a global player in the green transition, this is not a distant crisis: it is a direct threat to the wires that will power our electric future.
The elections are a farce of fear. Crime has surged, the economy sputters, and the populace is so disillusioned that many will not vote. The leading candidates promise order, but their methods range from the autocratic to the absurd. One proposes a military crackdown reminiscent of Pinochet; another offers a muddled populism that would make even Perón wince. Sound familiar? It should. This is the same cycle of instability that has plagued Latin America for centuries, from the fall of the Inca Empire to the debt crises of the 1980s. We in the West, with our smug stability, forget that history is a pendulum. Peru is swinging, and we are tied to its rhythm.
Why should a Briton care? Because copper is the new oil. Every electric vehicle, every wind turbine, every data centre requires vast amounts of it. Peru produces 10% of the world's copper. That makes it a lynchpin of the net-zero fantasy that politicians in Westminster are so fond of. If Peruvian mines shut down due to violence or political meddling, the price of copper will skyrocket. Your electric car tax break will mean nothing when the car costs £80,000. The renewable energy grids will remain a pipe dream. And Britain, with its grand net-zero ambitions, will be exposed as utterly dependent on unstable, far-off states.
One might compare this to the US dependency on Middle Eastern oil in the 1970s. That ended in queues at petrol stations and a decade of stagflation. Now we are courting the same disaster, but with copper. The difference is that we have learned nothing. Our leaders prattle on about 'strategic autonomy' while doing nothing to secure supply chains. They treat Peru's election as a foreign news item, not a matter of national security.
What is to be done? First, admit that the green transition is a geopolitical vulnerability. Second, invest in domestic mining and recycling, even if it annoys the environmental activists. Third, forge alliances that are based on mutual interest, not pious lectures about human rights. Peru does not need our moralising; it needs stable governance. If that means supporting a strongman who can pacify the mining regions, so be it. The alternative is a collapse in supply that will make the Suez Canal blockage look like a minor inconvenience.
The fall of Rome was hastened by its dependence on Egyptian grain. Our fall may be hastened by our dependence on Peruvian copper. Let us hope the election yields a leader who understands that stability is not tyranny, but the foundation of prosperity. If not, we will all share in the ruin. And the historians, if any remain, will note that we saw it coming and did nothing.
