This study critically examines problematisations of the concept of ‘conflict minerals’ in the 2017 European Union conflict minerals trade regulation. It applies the ‘What is the problem represented to be?’ approach as devised by Carol Bacchi to policy analysis in order to disclose problem representations of ‘conflict minerals’ in the EU Regulation and the effects these understandings of the issue have on the EU’s response as a governing tool. Thus, it traces historical foundations for the Regulation’s discourse on conflict minerals and challenges the dominant way minerals from conflict-affected and high-risk areas are thought about in the European Union. The Regulation understands conflict minerals to be a problem of lacking economic development in affected regions arising from weak state structures and illegitimate armed groups causing instability and violent conflict. It therefore considers strengthening good governance and state control of trade revenues to be a remedy for resource wars. Such perceptions are based on a global neoliberal worldview originating from US-backed reconstruction efforts in post-WWII Europe as well as a Eurocentric eschatological understanding of development according to Western norms. This omits broader political, social, and cultural elements of violent conflict and grounds problem representations in colonial and neo-colonial thought and practice. The study concludes that such findings may impede the EU Regulation’s possibilities of contributing to peace in the affected regions, since key dynamics in global trade and conflict are not taken into account.