It is an irony that the minerals needed to save the planet might help destroy it. Rare earths, the mineral backbones of wind turbines and electric vehicles, are now the prize in a geopolitical arms race. The trade agreement between Washington and Beijing restores rare earth shipments from China to the US, which had been suspended in retaliation against US President Donald Trump’s tariffs.
Behind the bluster, there has been a realization in Washington that these are critical inputs for the US. They are needed not just by US icons such as Ford and Boeing, but for its fighter jets, missile guidance systems and satellite communications.
This understanding suggests that Washington would scale back some of its countermeasures once Beijing resumes delivery of rare earths. The paradox is that to reduce its dependence on China, the US must depend on Beijing a little longer. This is not yet decoupling; it is deferment.
However, that might not last. Trump has signed an executive order to boost production of critical minerals, which encourages the faster granting of permits for mining and processing projects. He eyes Ukraine’s and Greenland’s subterranean riches to break dependence on China.
The West became so reliant on a single geopolitical rival for such materials — materials it once extracted and refined domestically before shuttering operations — due to cost and environmental concerns.
China, for its part, has come to dominate global rare earth processing. It has used that market power before — notably against Japan in 2010. It is hard not to think that it was strategic complacency that led to the West relying so heavily on China for key minerals.
Last month’s NATO summit has seen the West push to reindustrialize via rearming itself. This is also reawakening long-dormant extractive ambitions in the global north.
Canada, flush with critical mineral deposits, says its planned mining resurgence would be a new foundation for alliance solidarity. Last month, the EU called for strategic reserves of rare earths “to prevent supply chain disruptions and economic blackmail from China” — highlighting their importance not just for electric vehicles, but for the defense and aerospace industries. “Resilience” means digging deeper at home and controlling extraction abroad.
The same minerals we need for net zero are being justified in terms of zero-sum rivalry. It is uncomfortable that “green growth” and militarism have merged into a single policy frame, collapsing the distinction between ecological transition and arms buildup. A magnet for an electric car is also a magnet for a hypersonic missile. Meanwhile, the human and ecological toll continues to rise — largely out of sight and out of sync with the idea of environmental sustainability.
A Guardian dispatch last week from Baotou, China’s rare earth capital, found evidence of toxic ponds, poisoned soil and demolished “cancer villages” — the hidden cost of our digital and electric age. Framing this as an inconvenient necessity risks repeating past mistakes. For mineral-rich nations, the surge in global demand brings opportunity.
However, as a UN report this year noted, without strong institutions and safeguards, it risks a familiar fate: corruption, conflict and environmental ruin.
Today’s scramble for critical minerals must not see the promises of responsible sourcing give way to a familiar logic — extract first, moralize later.
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
An American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) spokesperson on Saturday rebuked a Chinese official for mischaracterizing World War II-era agreements as proving that Taiwan was ceded to China. The US Department of State later affirmed that the AIT remarks reflect Washington’s long-standing position: Taiwan’s political status remains undetermined and should only be resolved peacefully. The US would continue supporting Taiwan against military, economic, legal and diplomatic pressure from China, and opposes any unilateral attempt to alter the “status quo,” particularly through coercion or force, the United Daily News cited the department as saying. The remarks followed Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman recently sat down for an interview with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson in which he openly acknowledged that ChatGPT’s model behavior is indeed influencing the entire world, and that he himself is responsible for the decisions related to the bot’s moral framework. He said that he has not had a good night of sleep since its launch, as the technology could bring about unpredictable consequences. Although the discussion took place in the US, it is closely related to Taiwan. While Altman worries about the concentration of power, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has already weaponized artificial
RSS