US, UK, EU, Australia and more to meet to discuss critical minerals alliance(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
US, UK, EU, Australia and more to meet to discuss critical minerals alliance
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/feb/01/us-uk-eu-australia-critical-minerals-rare-earths-g7-minimum-price
17 comments
> Why is a minimum price more important that a maximum one with guaranteed supply quotas?
Previous attempts to set up a supply chain for these minerals in the West have repeatedly failed because the economics didn't work out. If China can sell a batch of samarium at a lower cost than what a Western firm would spend to extract it, you simply can't run the business without a minimum price or equivalent ongoing subsidy.
> And who trusts the US for that?
The US is the largest consumer and could be a major supplier of these minerals. Their position on this issue is relevant regardless of trust.
Previous attempts to set up a supply chain for these minerals in the West have repeatedly failed because the economics didn't work out. If China can sell a batch of samarium at a lower cost than what a Western firm would spend to extract it, you simply can't run the business without a minimum price or equivalent ongoing subsidy.
> And who trusts the US for that?
The US is the largest consumer and could be a major supplier of these minerals. Their position on this issue is relevant regardless of trust.
> you simply can't run the business without a minimum price or equivalent ongoing subsidy.
This is the question - what form of subsidy to use? You seem to imply they're all the same but that isn't true. For example, farming is subsidized in the US without mandating minimum prices - there seem to be good reasons for that but why are minerals so much different as to warrant a different approach which is significantly more disruptive to competition and thus to market forces?
> The US is the largest consumer and could be a major supplier of these minerals. Their position on this issue is relevant regardless of trust.
That statement is irrelevant to the quote it replied to. The issue was trust regarding agreement-breaking tariff and other trade policies which turn any agreement into a one-sided tool for achieving market domination - that is, when one side conforms to agreements and the other doesn't, that other side is effectively dictating its conditions to the rest. This should be quite obvious but what do I know.
This is the question - what form of subsidy to use? You seem to imply they're all the same but that isn't true. For example, farming is subsidized in the US without mandating minimum prices - there seem to be good reasons for that but why are minerals so much different as to warrant a different approach which is significantly more disruptive to competition and thus to market forces?
> The US is the largest consumer and could be a major supplier of these minerals. Their position on this issue is relevant regardless of trust.
That statement is irrelevant to the quote it replied to. The issue was trust regarding agreement-breaking tariff and other trade policies which turn any agreement into a one-sided tool for achieving market domination - that is, when one side conforms to agreements and the other doesn't, that other side is effectively dictating its conditions to the rest. This should be quite obvious but what do I know.
Farming in the US is indeed subsidized with minimum prices. Because the government isn't itself in the value chain of most farm goods, there's a two-level payment structure; rather than telling the buyer they must pay at least $X, the government steps in to pay the difference between the market price and the minimum (https://www.fsa.usda.gov/resources/programs/arc-plc). But the products made from critical minerals are almost all destined for government purchase, so there's no point in complicating things.
> That statement is irrelevant to the quote it replied to.
I don't think that's true, unless the quote was meant as a snippy aside that's irrelevant to the source article. If the US wants to talk about critical minerals, you can (probably should!) be skeptical of any promises or commitments the current administration makes, but refusing to talk isn't a realistic option.
They're talking to China too, to be clear. The EU hosted talks in October. However, the Chinese position on the matter is pretty clear: they're happy to export these minerals for civilian applications, but they don't want to supply foreign militaries, and they're going to enact whatever restrictions are necessary to ensure that stops happening.
> That statement is irrelevant to the quote it replied to.
I don't think that's true, unless the quote was meant as a snippy aside that's irrelevant to the source article. If the US wants to talk about critical minerals, you can (probably should!) be skeptical of any promises or commitments the current administration makes, but refusing to talk isn't a realistic option.
They're talking to China too, to be clear. The EU hosted talks in October. However, the Chinese position on the matter is pretty clear: they're happy to export these minerals for civilian applications, but they don't want to supply foreign militaries, and they're going to enact whatever restrictions are necessary to ensure that stops happening.
> They're talking to China too, to be clear. The EU hosted talks in October. However, the Chinese position on the matter is pretty clear: they're happy to export these minerals for civilian applications, but they don't want to supply foreign militaries, and they're going to enact whatever restrictions are necessary to ensure that stops happening.
This is also why the EU signed a Defense Pact with India [0] and Vietnam [1] last week - critical mineral sourcing from India and Vietnam leveraging Japanese [2] and Korean [3] technology partnerships in both countries drove both deals. Additonally, both Indian and Vietnamese component and defense vendors are now elligible to participate in Rearm Europe/Readiness 2030 along with their Japanese and Korean partners like Mitsubishi, Kawasaki, Hyundai, and Samsung.
[0] - https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/security-and-defence-eu-and-...
[1] - https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/eu-and-viet-nam-upgrade-rela...
[2] - https://trei.co.in/
[3] - https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/rare-earths-magn...
This is also why the EU signed a Defense Pact with India [0] and Vietnam [1] last week - critical mineral sourcing from India and Vietnam leveraging Japanese [2] and Korean [3] technology partnerships in both countries drove both deals. Additonally, both Indian and Vietnamese component and defense vendors are now elligible to participate in Rearm Europe/Readiness 2030 along with their Japanese and Korean partners like Mitsubishi, Kawasaki, Hyundai, and Samsung.
[0] - https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/security-and-defence-eu-and-...
[1] - https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/eu-and-viet-nam-upgrade-rela...
[2] - https://trei.co.in/
[3] - https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/rare-earths-magn...
> what form of subsidy to use
Most countries are adopting a Production Linked Incentive model for REEs which Vietnam [1] and India [0] are using to build our capacity, as both face active military disputes against China, and have been supported by Japanese [2] and Korean [3] processing tech transfers and JVs.
Western countries like Australia and the US are adopting similar strategies, which is the point of the summit mentioned.
> The issue was trust regarding agreement-breaking tariff and other trade policies which turn any agreement into a one-sided tool for achieving market domination
The issue is China has already [4] done [5] this [6] for over a decade [7].
As such, most countries (especially Asian countries where the majority of the electronic supply chain exist) are fine working with the US because China is an existential threat that wishes to invade them.
The EU used to be on the fence but Chinese leadership's constant undermining [8] of the EU [9] as an institution [10] led the EU to get on board as well.
[0] - https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/india-...
[1] - https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/vietnam-aims-rai...
[2] - https://trei.co.in/
[3] - https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/2025-08-20/busines...
[4] - https://www.reuters.com/world/china/eu-firms-brace-more-shut...
[5] - https://www.mofcom.gov.cn/zwgk/zcfb/art/2026/art_8990fedae8f...
[6] - https://www.reuters.com/world/china/india-taking-steps-mitig...
[7] - https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/senkaku_crisis.pdf
[8] - https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3316875/ch...
[9] - https://www.ft.com/content/1ed0b791-a447-48f4-9c38-abbf5f283...
[10] - https://www.intelligenceonline.fr/asie-pacifique/2025/12/16/...
Most countries are adopting a Production Linked Incentive model for REEs which Vietnam [1] and India [0] are using to build our capacity, as both face active military disputes against China, and have been supported by Japanese [2] and Korean [3] processing tech transfers and JVs.
Western countries like Australia and the US are adopting similar strategies, which is the point of the summit mentioned.
> The issue was trust regarding agreement-breaking tariff and other trade policies which turn any agreement into a one-sided tool for achieving market domination
The issue is China has already [4] done [5] this [6] for over a decade [7].
As such, most countries (especially Asian countries where the majority of the electronic supply chain exist) are fine working with the US because China is an existential threat that wishes to invade them.
The EU used to be on the fence but Chinese leadership's constant undermining [8] of the EU [9] as an institution [10] led the EU to get on board as well.
[0] - https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/india-...
[1] - https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/vietnam-aims-rai...
[2] - https://trei.co.in/
[3] - https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/2025-08-20/busines...
[4] - https://www.reuters.com/world/china/eu-firms-brace-more-shut...
[5] - https://www.mofcom.gov.cn/zwgk/zcfb/art/2026/art_8990fedae8f...
[6] - https://www.reuters.com/world/china/india-taking-steps-mitig...
[7] - https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/senkaku_crisis.pdf
[8] - https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3316875/ch...
[9] - https://www.ft.com/content/1ed0b791-a447-48f4-9c38-abbf5f283...
[10] - https://www.intelligenceonline.fr/asie-pacifique/2025/12/16/...
So what is happening right now with rare earths used for military purposes? My reading says it will take 5-10 years to build processing facilities without which the raw ore is useless. Has the US stopped building missiles and fighter jets? They seem to still be selling them to other countries, but it is unclear if they can actually deliver anything until many years from now, or even restock their own supplies. Maybe the military has a small stockpile of some of the REE's? It's also not clear how the UK, EU, and Australia are going to stockpile REE's if they don't have the capability to process the ore. Is the West's supply of weapons going to run out soon as they use up what they have and can't build more? This seems pertinent both to attacking Iran and the war in Ukraine.
Stockpiles have existed for years, and Japan+SK began building an ExChina REE supply chain in the 2011-17 era that most other countries are piggybacking on.
> UK, EU, and Australia are going to stockpile REE's if they don't have the capability to process the ore
They do. The issue has been price. They only began working on building an ExChina supply chain 2019 onwards, and this current G7+ announcement is part of that larger strategy that officially began under Biden but has been cooking for years.
> UK, EU, and Australia are going to stockpile REE's if they don't have the capability to process the ore
They do. The issue has been price. They only began working on building an ExChina supply chain 2019 onwards, and this current G7+ announcement is part of that larger strategy that officially began under Biden but has been cooking for years.
Think this would have a better chance minus the US. They're way to busy with imploding national politics
This was a Biden era project that has had continued support from Trump aligned NatSec personnel. Most people associated with this remain in the DoD/DoW and/or are American nationals.
For those of us in the NatSec space, our interests are largely aligned. This is why you see people like Doshi, Mastro, Colby, and others pushing for similar policies despite working under different admins.
The Chinese government has been running an ongoing disinfo campaign against Western attempts at building an ExChina REE supply chain for years [0].
Finally, China de facto blocked REE exports to all Western and Western aligned nations in 2025 - not just the US - with the EU [1], Japan [2], and India [3] facing severe export controls as a result.
[0] - https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/threat-intelligence/dra...
[1] - https://www.reuters.com/world/china/eu-firms-brace-more-shut...
[2] - https://www.mofcom.gov.cn/zwgk/zcfb/art/2026/art_8990fedae8f...
[3] - https://www.reuters.com/world/china/india-taking-steps-mitig...
For those of us in the NatSec space, our interests are largely aligned. This is why you see people like Doshi, Mastro, Colby, and others pushing for similar policies despite working under different admins.
The Chinese government has been running an ongoing disinfo campaign against Western attempts at building an ExChina REE supply chain for years [0].
Finally, China de facto blocked REE exports to all Western and Western aligned nations in 2025 - not just the US - with the EU [1], Japan [2], and India [3] facing severe export controls as a result.
[0] - https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/threat-intelligence/dra...
[1] - https://www.reuters.com/world/china/eu-firms-brace-more-shut...
[2] - https://www.mofcom.gov.cn/zwgk/zcfb/art/2026/art_8990fedae8f...
[3] - https://www.reuters.com/world/china/india-taking-steps-mitig...
It’s not the people involved that I’m worried about, or even the various players pushing agendas as they’re bound to but rather that the US is too erratic from up to. Regardless of what’s agreed there is a tangible chance trump changes his mind 24hrs later because of a brain fart or someone whispered something in his ear and promised to make him personally rich.
It’s pointless engaging with that regardless of technical merits if you don’t have some confidence it’ll stick at least medium termish
It’s pointless engaging with that regardless of technical merits if you don’t have some confidence it’ll stick at least medium termish
Let’s carve out the world once again. It will totally work out this time. Trust me.
Maybe China should not have blocked rare earth exports to the EU [0], Japan [1], India [2], and other countries in addition to the US in 2025.
This is why ExChina is the name-of-the-game in the REE space, becuase this risk has been something most of us in the space recognized would occur since 2011 during the Senkaku-Diaoyu standoff, and finally got backing during the Biden admin.
[0] - https://www.reuters.com/world/china/eu-firms-brace-more-shut...
[1] - https://www.csis.org/analysis/chinas-rare-earth-campaign-aga...
[2] - https://www.reuters.com/world/china/india-taking-steps-mitig...
This is why ExChina is the name-of-the-game in the REE space, becuase this risk has been something most of us in the space recognized would occur since 2011 during the Senkaku-Diaoyu standoff, and finally got backing during the Biden admin.
[0] - https://www.reuters.com/world/china/eu-firms-brace-more-shut...
[1] - https://www.csis.org/analysis/chinas-rare-earth-campaign-aga...
[2] - https://www.reuters.com/world/china/india-taking-steps-mitig...
> Maybe China should not have blocked rare earth exports
They didn't block exports, they required government permission for export. [1]
And that happened after 150% tariffs on China and the ban of exporting EUV semiconductor equipment to them. China's response was a quite normal negotiation tactic given the chapter of "The Art of the Deal" which was being used against them.
"On 4 April 2025, as one of the responses to US President Donald Trump’s administration’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs, China introduced export controls on seven heavy REEs (with licensing requirements), as well as on all related compounds, metals and magnets. Exporters are required to obtain a licence, and need to provide information on the end users of REEs" [1]
Then the tariffs normalized somewhat but the EUV ban remains, nevertheless China repealed the licensing on rare-earths as a sign of good will - only to be blamed for... the policies of others which have shown to bring only suffering, poverty and wars.
> This is why ExChina is the name-of-the-game in the REE space, because this risk has been something most of us in the space recognized would occur since 2011
Subsidies are normal in the West, it's not China's fault that the West didn't subsidize rare-earths for many years. The issue here is excusing other risky policies (erratic tariffs, hostile trade restrictions, etc) with a country that simply provided what they were asked to provide.
[1] https://epthinktank.eu/2025/11/24/chinas-rare-earth-export-r...
They didn't block exports, they required government permission for export. [1]
And that happened after 150% tariffs on China and the ban of exporting EUV semiconductor equipment to them. China's response was a quite normal negotiation tactic given the chapter of "The Art of the Deal" which was being used against them.
"On 4 April 2025, as one of the responses to US President Donald Trump’s administration’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs, China introduced export controls on seven heavy REEs (with licensing requirements), as well as on all related compounds, metals and magnets. Exporters are required to obtain a licence, and need to provide information on the end users of REEs" [1]
Then the tariffs normalized somewhat but the EUV ban remains, nevertheless China repealed the licensing on rare-earths as a sign of good will - only to be blamed for... the policies of others which have shown to bring only suffering, poverty and wars.
> This is why ExChina is the name-of-the-game in the REE space, because this risk has been something most of us in the space recognized would occur since 2011
Subsidies are normal in the West, it's not China's fault that the West didn't subsidize rare-earths for many years. The issue here is excusing other risky policies (erratic tariffs, hostile trade restrictions, etc) with a country that simply provided what they were asked to provide.
[1] https://epthinktank.eu/2025/11/24/chinas-rare-earth-export-r...
The EU, Japan, and India are not part of the USA.
> China repealed the ban on rare-earths as a sign of good will
This is the crux of the issue. To Indian, Japanese, European, and policymakers of other affected nations even taking such an attempt against them burnt all goodwill to China.
---
Following the export controls in 2025, the decision was made in most countries to expand the development of an ExChina supply chain.
> China repealed the ban on rare-earths as a sign of good will
This is the crux of the issue. To Indian, Japanese, European, and policymakers of other affected nations even taking such an attempt against them burnt all goodwill to China.
---
Following the export controls in 2025, the decision was made in most countries to expand the development of an ExChina supply chain.
> Following the export controls in 2025, the decision was made in most countries to expand the development of an ExChina supply chain. > This is the crux of the issue.
It's not. I clearly stated that developing an REE supply chain outside of China had to be done a lot earlier.
The crux of the issue is these countries are blaming China for the fragility of the supply chain instead of blaming themselves for their tardiness while thanking China for sending a clear message - "develop your own sheet, we are afraid of running out ourselves".
I'm talking politics 101 but, by default, you're stuck on "blame China" which is how we fail to fix the real problems - they don't come from China.
Not subsidizing REE earlier was a dumb decision, doing it belatedly by way of hostile alliances against the single, long time and rather benevolent supplier is another folly.
Include China in the negotiations, its a simple matter! Too bad the "China bad" attitude is so addictive that it excludes rational thinking.
It's not. I clearly stated that developing an REE supply chain outside of China had to be done a lot earlier.
The crux of the issue is these countries are blaming China for the fragility of the supply chain instead of blaming themselves for their tardiness while thanking China for sending a clear message - "develop your own sheet, we are afraid of running out ourselves".
I'm talking politics 101 but, by default, you're stuck on "blame China" which is how we fail to fix the real problems - they don't come from China.
Not subsidizing REE earlier was a dumb decision, doing it belatedly by way of hostile alliances against the single, long time and rather benevolent supplier is another folly.
Include China in the negotiations, its a simple matter! Too bad the "China bad" attitude is so addictive that it excludes rational thinking.
This is a misquoting of my tiny quote blurb so it is clear that your are discussing this topic in bad faith.
The key demand for India, Japan, Vietnam, South Korea, and other Asian nations adjacent to the PRC is that the PRC negotiate in good faith and frankly, drop demands over Ladakh/Arunachal, Senkaku, Hoang Sa, the Yellow Sea, and other disputes.
This means mutually discussing how to develop an offramp. And as I mentioned elsewhere, Asian states already began building an ExChina supply chain for critical minerals processing and magnet manufacturing in the 2011-17 period.
The issue is the PRC under the current administration has not negotiated from a position of good faith, which has forced all neighboring nations to start building their own supply chains and ecosystems independent of PRC.
The PRC has also been treating the EU in bad faith by undermining the EU as an institution (which I have noted multiple times before with sources) as well as a fairly mainstream view in MOFA affiliated think tanks that the EU will always be subservient to American interests [0] as well as attempting to kidnap European nationals [1] and running disinformation campaigns against European defense exports [2]
This is why there is a global initiative now to build a critical minerals supply chain without China.
[0] - https://fddi.fudan.edu.cn/_t2515/57/f8/c21257a743416/page.ht...
[1] - https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2024/07/02/deux-espio...
[2] - https://www.defense.gouv.fr/desinformation/nos-analyses-froi...
The key demand for India, Japan, Vietnam, South Korea, and other Asian nations adjacent to the PRC is that the PRC negotiate in good faith and frankly, drop demands over Ladakh/Arunachal, Senkaku, Hoang Sa, the Yellow Sea, and other disputes.
This means mutually discussing how to develop an offramp. And as I mentioned elsewhere, Asian states already began building an ExChina supply chain for critical minerals processing and magnet manufacturing in the 2011-17 period.
The issue is the PRC under the current administration has not negotiated from a position of good faith, which has forced all neighboring nations to start building their own supply chains and ecosystems independent of PRC.
The PRC has also been treating the EU in bad faith by undermining the EU as an institution (which I have noted multiple times before with sources) as well as a fairly mainstream view in MOFA affiliated think tanks that the EU will always be subservient to American interests [0] as well as attempting to kidnap European nationals [1] and running disinformation campaigns against European defense exports [2]
This is why there is a global initiative now to build a critical minerals supply chain without China.
[0] - https://fddi.fudan.edu.cn/_t2515/57/f8/c21257a743416/page.ht...
[1] - https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2024/07/02/deux-espio...
[2] - https://www.defense.gouv.fr/desinformation/nos-analyses-froi...
Why is a minimum price more important that a maximum one with guaranteed supply quotas?
And who trusts the US for that?
> “This is about trust. You sign a deal and you trust it will apply,” said an EU source. “This constant threat of more tariffs, whether 10% because of Greenland or 200% on champagne because they don’t sign up to the ‘board of peace’ has to stop.”
Yea. I guess its just theater to calm trump and to guarantee profit margins.