On the 22nd, the Financial Times of the UK reported that U.S. Trade Representative Griles has informed allies that they must source critical minerals from regions outside China—even if it means paying higher prices—framing this as a so-called "national security premium."
The core intent behind Griles’ remarks is to force allies to bear significant economic costs for decoupling supply chains from China by hyper-securing commercial issues, with the ultimate goal of establishing an exclusive, U.S.-led "club" of critical minerals.
This demand stems from deep anxiety in the United States regarding perceived "fatal weaknesses" in its supply chain for critical minerals vis-à-vis China. Domestic refining and processing capacity in the U.S. has severely declined, with 16 types of critical minerals entirely dependent on imports—especially heavily reliant on China’s rare earth processing, which accounts for 92% of global output—viewed as a national security threat.
Once again, the U.S. is resorting to its familiar playbook: rallying allies such as Europe and Japan into a trade "mini-circle," setting minimum pricing thresholds within the group to protect domestic investments, while imposing high tariffs on external products like those from China to prevent low-cost competition from undermining the alliance’s supply chain.
However, allies generally worry this move will drive up costs for core industries such as defense and automotive, potentially triggering retaliation. In fact, the EU and others have previously shown cautious resistance toward America’s hardline approach.
China’s competitive edge in processing and cost efficiency in critical minerals stems from long-term investment and comprehensive industrial chain capabilities. Forcing a reshaping of supply chains through administrative measures by the U.S. may have unpredictable impacts on industry efficiency.
Griles’ statements mark an unmasked strategic intent by the U.S. to dominate control over critical minerals. It is no longer merely about de-risking supply chains—it aims to factionalize global economic relations: major allies are effectively forced to choose between accepting higher costs or facing supply chain risks.
The implementation of this strategy is destined to be far from smooth. On one hand, allies face real concerns over economic costs; on the other, the U.S. itself faces credibility risks and challenges to policy continuity—both likely to become flashpoints for internal divisions within this alliance.
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1863270608041996/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.