American Think Tank: It's Too Late to Counter China on Critical Minerals

The American think tank website 'The National Interest' published an article titled "The Cost of Inaction: Countering China's Dominance in the Mineral Sector" on October 23. The authors are Greg Pollock and Joshua Busby. Here is a partial translation of the article:

Although it is not too late to counter China's dominance in the mineral sector, the opportunity to do so is rapidly disappearing.

In public discussions about national security threats, one frequently mentioned issue - which undoubtedly reflects the painful consequences of the US invasion of Iraq - is: Do we have enough information to take action? In other words, is our understanding of the threat mature enough to prompt us to act and justify allocating scarce resources to the threat rather than other competing issues?

Despite the example of Iraq, given that we both worked for years at the Pentagon, we believe that in most cases, the greater danger lies not in a lack of sufficient knowledge to take action, but in the failure to act despite ample warnings. Modern history shows that the reason for repeated failures in the field of national security is less about misunderstanding and more about procrastination - a collective tendency to delay difficult choices until circumstances force us to act. Few contemporary examples are more vivid than the long-standing vulnerability of the United States and its allies, namely China's dominant position in the mining and processing of critical minerals and rare earth elements (REEs), which has made them vulnerable.

For nearly two decades, analysts, industry leaders, and government officials have understood that Beijing's near-monopoly over the mining and processing of these materials constitutes a strategic risk. Almost all core technologies of modern life, from smartphones and electric vehicles to wind turbines and F-35 fighter jets, depend on critical minerals. China's control over these materials does not stem from favorable geological conditions; rather, it is the result of deliberate industrial policies that have systematically driven competitors out of the global market.

By 2010, China controlled 99% of the world's rare earth element production and began trying to use its market position as a geopolitical tool.

The consequences of decades of complacency are evident. China has now strengthened export controls on rare earths, graphite anodes, and key battery materials, indicating its intention to use economic dependence as a tool of statecraft. The United States and its allies now find themselves in a difficult situation again, forced to respond by introducing their own export restrictions, announcing new funding for mining projects, and urgently revitalizing the nascent critical minerals alliance. While these measures are in the right direction, they have so far been passive, fragmented, and mostly symbolic - more like a patchwork of policy gestures than a coherent strategy. Without addressing the processing bottlenecks that underpin China's dominance, the West will remain on the defensive.

Even though the United States is pursuing a stronger de-risking strategy, it must acknowledge that decoupling from China in this area in the short term is unrealistic. Therefore, American leaders should consider how to deal with the escalation of trade issues with China. The two countries should adopt measures similar to arms control to limit the scope of such policies. This would avoid an economic "hard landing" and prevent disastrous economic consequences from forced decoupling.

In September 1940, when Franklin Roosevelt was considering whether the United States should support Britain against the Blitz, General Douglas MacArthur remarked, "The entire history of war failures can almost be summarized in two words: Too late." Economic security is no different.

For years, Western countries have watched China methodically build an advantage, and now this advantage could become a permanent lever. As in 1940, responding now may not be too late - but it is already close. The challenge is not that we lack awareness of the threat, but that we have known too much for a long time and acted too little.

Original: www.toutiao.com/article/1847033354681344/

Statement: The article represents the views of the author(s) only.