Viridis nabs $11.5M raise to fast-track Brazilian rare earths play
The deal was struck at 91 cents per share representing a modest 9 per cent discount to the last traded price, but unusually, at a 13 per cent premium to the 10-day volume weighted average price - a rare feat in the small-cap space and a testament to the project's pull.
Bringing serious firepower to the table, Brazil's institutional powerhouse JGP Asset Management provided cornerstone backing by chipping in $5 million.
Known for its rigorous due diligence and deep local networks, JGP has also brings its regulatory and strategic advisory nous to the project, which could prove invaluable as Viridis looks to commercialise Colossus.
In a vote of confidence from the top, Viridis chairman Jon Parker tinned up with a $250,000 commitment, subject to shareholder approval. Meanwhile the company's recent memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Brazilian financiers ORE Investments and Régia Capital flagged the potential of an additional US$30 million (A$46 million) to flow in through a staged, non-brokered private placement.
Once the placement funds are settled and the MOU is nutted out, all up Viridis could be sitting on a hefty $58.5 million in funding - enough to propel the company well past final investment decision (FID) and into early construction.
Adding major punch to its plans, Viridis and its joint venture partner Viridion also revealed yesterday they have been handpicked by two of Brazil's premier development banks to fast-track the duo's magnet recycling and rare earths oxide production initiative under a national joint support plan.
According to the company, this support pathway unlocks a suite of public funding options ranging from low-interest loans to equity injections and even potential grant funding to supercharge the project's financial runway.
Last month, Viridis unveiled its long-awaited prefeasibility study, which confirmed Colossus, with its simple metallurgy, as a world class high-grade ionic clay deposit, capable of operating from an uber-low cost base.
Boasting a hefty pre-tax net present value of US$1.41 billion (A$2.16 billion), the project is forecast to generate a staggering US$5.64 billion (A$8.66 billion) in total revenue over a 20-year mine life, based on a conservative US$90 per kilogram price for the sought-after battery metals neodymium and praseodymium.
Even if the numbers were adjusted to accommodate today's softer spot price of US$63/kg, the economics still stack up, delivering a robust US$2.57 billion (A$3.95 billion) in cashflow, proving the project's ability to ride out the commodity cycle.
Base case annual operating cashflow is projected come in at US$197 million (A$302 million), with the upside scenario at US$111/kg lifting that figure to a sizzling US$260 million (A$399 million) a year.
As Viridis nails down financing, the company plans to use the funds to build a mixed rare earth carbonate trial plant, complete its definitive feasibility study, progress regulatory approvals and drill new zones adjacent to the existing resource.
Permitting is well advanced with an environmental impact assessment submitted earlier this year and the certificate of regularity for land use already secured from local authorities.
Viridis says the next 12 months will be jam packed with milestones, including technical de-risking, commercial negotiations and early-stage engineering, in efforts to fast-track company plans by becoming one of the West's few vertically integrated rare earths suppliers.
With premium support from deep-pocketed investors, endorsement from Brazil's top financial institutions, and a standout project in its back pocket, Viridis appears to be gearing up to shake the foundations of the Western rare earths supply chain - even in a weak commodity price environment and all with a stack of cash in the bank.
Is your ASX-listed company doing something interesting? Contact:
matt.birney@wanews.com.au
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
11 hours ago
- ABC News
US senator Chris Coons says Australia spending more on defence than given credit for
A senior Democrat senator who led a US congressional delegation to Australia says the Albanese government deserves more credit for its level of defence spending, but should still go further. Senator Chris Coons, who sits on the Foreign Relations Committee, said Australia was spending more than it was given credit for once shipyards and other defence infrastructure were taken into account. The delegation of Republican and Democrat members of Congress met Australia's prime minister in Sydney on Friday afternoon after attending the Australian America Leadership Dialogue in Adelaide. "I do think an increased investment in defence would be justified", Senator Coons told the ABC after meeting Anthony Albanese. "Of course, that's a decision for the Australian government, the Australian people", he added. Defence spending currently sits at just over 2 per cent of GDP in Australia and is forecast to reach 2.3 per cent by 2033-'34. Senator Coons said if other defence infrastructure was to be included the figure would be higher. "The way that our NATO allies are counting their percentage of GDP, I'm told, would give Australia credit for north of 2.7 or 2.8 per cent," he said. NATO members have recently committed to lift their defence spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP. Senator Coons said this figure "might be significantly easier for Australia to reach, given that your accounting doesn't quite give you full credit". He has vowed to spend as required to meet Australia's defence needs. The congressional delegation also strongly backed the AUKUS deal amid an ongoing review of the agreement by the Pentagon. US Defence Under Secretary Elbridge Colby, who is conducting the review, has also called on US allies in the Asia Pacific region to lift defence spending. Senator Coons said Congress would resist any move by the Pentagon to cancel or significantly change the AUKUS agreement. "I think if there were to be some unexpected change in direction there'd be very strong pushback from Republicans and Democrats who I've spoken within the Senate leadership," he said. The prime minister is hoping to meet President Donald Trump during a visit to the United States next month for the UN General Assembly.
The Advertiser
11 hours ago
- The Advertiser
The US has changed. Australia hasn't. It's time to talk about where the relationship goes from here
Seven months after Donald Trump was inaugurated for a second term as US president, we are facing the most important moment in Australia's foreign policy since the Iraq war. Australia needs to have a national conversation on the future of its alliance with the United States. The alliance was on the line with Trump's tariff decisions on August 1. The consensus was Australia dodged a bullet, and life goes on. But this was no flesh wound. By dictating and unilaterally imposing the terms of trade between the US and Australia - affirming the "reciprocal tariffs" of 10 per cent imposed on Australia, plus the tariffs of 50 per cent on both steel and aluminium - Trump has trashed the historic US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Trump has not provided a good answer to the question of what he is doing to one of the US's strongest and most consistent allies. And there is more to come. The president will also place a tariff on US imports of Australian pharmaceuticals. There is also far more to come on the future of the US-Australia alliance. Media have been full of opinions on what the relationship between the two countries ought to look like. These interventions have assayed the crucial importance of Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese meeting personally with Trump; whether Washington was rattled by Albanese's visit to China, whether Australia should "fortify northern Australia into an allied military stronghold for the region"; and whether the relationship is being mismanaged. The best model for this conversation would be the economic roundtable Treasurer Jim Chalmers will host in Canberra this month. Its purpose, Albanese said, is to "build the broadest possible base of support for further economic reform". Why not apply the same process to the future of our foreign policy and alliance with the US? A similar roundtable, convened by the foreign minister and bringing together the smartest and most experienced people from across the political and foreign policy spectrum to discuss all these issues, would provide the best and most sincere guidance for the country. There are three bedrock truths that are unimpeachably clear since Trump reassumed power in the US. First, Australia has not changed; the US has changed. Albanese and his government has not changed its posture towards the US. Trump has profoundly changed America's posture towards Australia. Second, the US is no longer the leader of the free world, because the free world is no longer following America. The democracies with which the US has been allied since the end of the Second World War are no longer acting in concert with the US, but in reaction to what Trump is doing across the global landscape - from the Americas, to the Atlantic, Russia, the Middle East, China, the Indo-Pacific and Australia. Third, Trump has destroyed the economic and trading architecture erected after the Second World War to promote growth and prosperity. Nations engaging economically with the US are no longer trading partners but trading victims. The "deals" Trump boasts about are involuntary. Trump's imposition of tariffs even on countries with a trade deficit with the US shows that his trade policy is, at heart, the unilateral exercise of US political power to force concessions to US domination. What is under profound challenge today - 84 years after prime minister John Curtin turned to the US and 73 years after the ANZUS treaty came into effect - is whether the US under Trump is still aligned with the vision the two countries have shared for decades. Australians have serious doubts about the relationship. The latest polling by Resolve Political Monitor documented "a strong desire for the country to assert more independence from the United States amid Donald Trump's turbulent presidency". Fewer than 20 per cent of Australian voters believe Trump's election victory was good for Australia. Nearly half of voters believe it would be "a good thing" for Australia to act more independently of the US. Pew Research reported in July that only 35 per cent of Australians believe the US is a top ally. Trump is driving away US allies. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said after winning office, "Our old relationship with the United States, a relationship based on steadily increasing integration, is over." When the leaders of Japan and South Korea received Trump's insulting letters of demarche on trade, they each said the correspondence was "deeply regrettable", with Japan's prime minister adding, "extremely disrespectful". Trump has also precipitated a trade war with India. How effective can the Quad - established by the US, Japan, India and Australia to serve as a counterweight to China - be if three of its four members are victims of Trump's tariffs? Australia has also broken with Trump on recognition of Palestine - issues of the highest importance to the president. Moreover, if the terms of whatever Trump is conjuring up with Putin to end the war with Ukraine are unacceptable to Ukraine and Europe, and Trump sides with Putin, a further sharp break by Australia with Trump is likely. The "soft power" wielded by Australia is also involved here. From the UN's inception, Australia has supported the architecture required to help secure peace, security, stability and the health and welfare of all peoples. But Trump has now withdrawn the US from UNESCO, the World Health Organisation, the World Trade Organisation, the Paris climate accords, the UN Human Rights Commission and others. He has terminated the USAID programs that delivered crucial health care and crisis relief. Medical studies project that millions of people will die as a result in the coming years. Australia uses that architecture to help change the world for the better. Trump is making that work much harder. Trump is repealing all US programs that combat global warming - the most important environmental issue of our times and the number-one existential security issue for Asia-Pacific nations. Australia shares their urgency. Since Trump's inauguration, AUKUS has consistently been viewed as a bellwether for the relationship. Australia's need for a modern submarine fleet is an existential issue for the country's defence capability. Will Trump, during the Pentagon's review of AUKUS, change its terms to be more favourable to the US? Is Australia spending enough on defence? Will the pace of submarine construction ensure Australia receives the subs in the 2030s? If not, are there better solutions than AUKUS? But the most important question is the most known unknown. What does Trump want from China? Trump has never outlined his endgame with President Xi Jinping. Yes, of course, the trade deal of the century. But at what price, particularly with respect to Taiwan? What are the consequences of all the scenarios and what does Australia need to do to be prepared? Trump is president and will continue to act with power and drama. Albanese will respond on behalf of Australia. That would be business as usual. But without the benefit of a considered national conversation about the future of the Australian-US alliance and what is in Australia's national interest, the current state of play does not rise to the challenges posed by Trump to Australia. US baseball legend Yogi Berra once said, "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." That's where we are. Let's talk about it. Seven months after Donald Trump was inaugurated for a second term as US president, we are facing the most important moment in Australia's foreign policy since the Iraq war. Australia needs to have a national conversation on the future of its alliance with the United States. The alliance was on the line with Trump's tariff decisions on August 1. The consensus was Australia dodged a bullet, and life goes on. But this was no flesh wound. By dictating and unilaterally imposing the terms of trade between the US and Australia - affirming the "reciprocal tariffs" of 10 per cent imposed on Australia, plus the tariffs of 50 per cent on both steel and aluminium - Trump has trashed the historic US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Trump has not provided a good answer to the question of what he is doing to one of the US's strongest and most consistent allies. And there is more to come. The president will also place a tariff on US imports of Australian pharmaceuticals. There is also far more to come on the future of the US-Australia alliance. Media have been full of opinions on what the relationship between the two countries ought to look like. These interventions have assayed the crucial importance of Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese meeting personally with Trump; whether Washington was rattled by Albanese's visit to China, whether Australia should "fortify northern Australia into an allied military stronghold for the region"; and whether the relationship is being mismanaged. The best model for this conversation would be the economic roundtable Treasurer Jim Chalmers will host in Canberra this month. Its purpose, Albanese said, is to "build the broadest possible base of support for further economic reform". Why not apply the same process to the future of our foreign policy and alliance with the US? A similar roundtable, convened by the foreign minister and bringing together the smartest and most experienced people from across the political and foreign policy spectrum to discuss all these issues, would provide the best and most sincere guidance for the country. There are three bedrock truths that are unimpeachably clear since Trump reassumed power in the US. First, Australia has not changed; the US has changed. Albanese and his government has not changed its posture towards the US. Trump has profoundly changed America's posture towards Australia. Second, the US is no longer the leader of the free world, because the free world is no longer following America. The democracies with which the US has been allied since the end of the Second World War are no longer acting in concert with the US, but in reaction to what Trump is doing across the global landscape - from the Americas, to the Atlantic, Russia, the Middle East, China, the Indo-Pacific and Australia. Third, Trump has destroyed the economic and trading architecture erected after the Second World War to promote growth and prosperity. Nations engaging economically with the US are no longer trading partners but trading victims. The "deals" Trump boasts about are involuntary. Trump's imposition of tariffs even on countries with a trade deficit with the US shows that his trade policy is, at heart, the unilateral exercise of US political power to force concessions to US domination. What is under profound challenge today - 84 years after prime minister John Curtin turned to the US and 73 years after the ANZUS treaty came into effect - is whether the US under Trump is still aligned with the vision the two countries have shared for decades. Australians have serious doubts about the relationship. The latest polling by Resolve Political Monitor documented "a strong desire for the country to assert more independence from the United States amid Donald Trump's turbulent presidency". Fewer than 20 per cent of Australian voters believe Trump's election victory was good for Australia. Nearly half of voters believe it would be "a good thing" for Australia to act more independently of the US. Pew Research reported in July that only 35 per cent of Australians believe the US is a top ally. Trump is driving away US allies. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said after winning office, "Our old relationship with the United States, a relationship based on steadily increasing integration, is over." When the leaders of Japan and South Korea received Trump's insulting letters of demarche on trade, they each said the correspondence was "deeply regrettable", with Japan's prime minister adding, "extremely disrespectful". Trump has also precipitated a trade war with India. How effective can the Quad - established by the US, Japan, India and Australia to serve as a counterweight to China - be if three of its four members are victims of Trump's tariffs? Australia has also broken with Trump on recognition of Palestine - issues of the highest importance to the president. Moreover, if the terms of whatever Trump is conjuring up with Putin to end the war with Ukraine are unacceptable to Ukraine and Europe, and Trump sides with Putin, a further sharp break by Australia with Trump is likely. The "soft power" wielded by Australia is also involved here. From the UN's inception, Australia has supported the architecture required to help secure peace, security, stability and the health and welfare of all peoples. But Trump has now withdrawn the US from UNESCO, the World Health Organisation, the World Trade Organisation, the Paris climate accords, the UN Human Rights Commission and others. He has terminated the USAID programs that delivered crucial health care and crisis relief. Medical studies project that millions of people will die as a result in the coming years. Australia uses that architecture to help change the world for the better. Trump is making that work much harder. Trump is repealing all US programs that combat global warming - the most important environmental issue of our times and the number-one existential security issue for Asia-Pacific nations. Australia shares their urgency. Since Trump's inauguration, AUKUS has consistently been viewed as a bellwether for the relationship. Australia's need for a modern submarine fleet is an existential issue for the country's defence capability. Will Trump, during the Pentagon's review of AUKUS, change its terms to be more favourable to the US? Is Australia spending enough on defence? Will the pace of submarine construction ensure Australia receives the subs in the 2030s? If not, are there better solutions than AUKUS? But the most important question is the most known unknown. What does Trump want from China? Trump has never outlined his endgame with President Xi Jinping. Yes, of course, the trade deal of the century. But at what price, particularly with respect to Taiwan? What are the consequences of all the scenarios and what does Australia need to do to be prepared? Trump is president and will continue to act with power and drama. Albanese will respond on behalf of Australia. That would be business as usual. But without the benefit of a considered national conversation about the future of the Australian-US alliance and what is in Australia's national interest, the current state of play does not rise to the challenges posed by Trump to Australia. US baseball legend Yogi Berra once said, "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." That's where we are. Let's talk about it. Seven months after Donald Trump was inaugurated for a second term as US president, we are facing the most important moment in Australia's foreign policy since the Iraq war. Australia needs to have a national conversation on the future of its alliance with the United States. The alliance was on the line with Trump's tariff decisions on August 1. The consensus was Australia dodged a bullet, and life goes on. But this was no flesh wound. By dictating and unilaterally imposing the terms of trade between the US and Australia - affirming the "reciprocal tariffs" of 10 per cent imposed on Australia, plus the tariffs of 50 per cent on both steel and aluminium - Trump has trashed the historic US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Trump has not provided a good answer to the question of what he is doing to one of the US's strongest and most consistent allies. And there is more to come. The president will also place a tariff on US imports of Australian pharmaceuticals. There is also far more to come on the future of the US-Australia alliance. Media have been full of opinions on what the relationship between the two countries ought to look like. These interventions have assayed the crucial importance of Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese meeting personally with Trump; whether Washington was rattled by Albanese's visit to China, whether Australia should "fortify northern Australia into an allied military stronghold for the region"; and whether the relationship is being mismanaged. The best model for this conversation would be the economic roundtable Treasurer Jim Chalmers will host in Canberra this month. Its purpose, Albanese said, is to "build the broadest possible base of support for further economic reform". Why not apply the same process to the future of our foreign policy and alliance with the US? A similar roundtable, convened by the foreign minister and bringing together the smartest and most experienced people from across the political and foreign policy spectrum to discuss all these issues, would provide the best and most sincere guidance for the country. There are three bedrock truths that are unimpeachably clear since Trump reassumed power in the US. First, Australia has not changed; the US has changed. Albanese and his government has not changed its posture towards the US. Trump has profoundly changed America's posture towards Australia. Second, the US is no longer the leader of the free world, because the free world is no longer following America. The democracies with which the US has been allied since the end of the Second World War are no longer acting in concert with the US, but in reaction to what Trump is doing across the global landscape - from the Americas, to the Atlantic, Russia, the Middle East, China, the Indo-Pacific and Australia. Third, Trump has destroyed the economic and trading architecture erected after the Second World War to promote growth and prosperity. Nations engaging economically with the US are no longer trading partners but trading victims. The "deals" Trump boasts about are involuntary. Trump's imposition of tariffs even on countries with a trade deficit with the US shows that his trade policy is, at heart, the unilateral exercise of US political power to force concessions to US domination. What is under profound challenge today - 84 years after prime minister John Curtin turned to the US and 73 years after the ANZUS treaty came into effect - is whether the US under Trump is still aligned with the vision the two countries have shared for decades. Australians have serious doubts about the relationship. The latest polling by Resolve Political Monitor documented "a strong desire for the country to assert more independence from the United States amid Donald Trump's turbulent presidency". Fewer than 20 per cent of Australian voters believe Trump's election victory was good for Australia. Nearly half of voters believe it would be "a good thing" for Australia to act more independently of the US. Pew Research reported in July that only 35 per cent of Australians believe the US is a top ally. Trump is driving away US allies. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said after winning office, "Our old relationship with the United States, a relationship based on steadily increasing integration, is over." When the leaders of Japan and South Korea received Trump's insulting letters of demarche on trade, they each said the correspondence was "deeply regrettable", with Japan's prime minister adding, "extremely disrespectful". Trump has also precipitated a trade war with India. How effective can the Quad - established by the US, Japan, India and Australia to serve as a counterweight to China - be if three of its four members are victims of Trump's tariffs? Australia has also broken with Trump on recognition of Palestine - issues of the highest importance to the president. Moreover, if the terms of whatever Trump is conjuring up with Putin to end the war with Ukraine are unacceptable to Ukraine and Europe, and Trump sides with Putin, a further sharp break by Australia with Trump is likely. The "soft power" wielded by Australia is also involved here. From the UN's inception, Australia has supported the architecture required to help secure peace, security, stability and the health and welfare of all peoples. But Trump has now withdrawn the US from UNESCO, the World Health Organisation, the World Trade Organisation, the Paris climate accords, the UN Human Rights Commission and others. He has terminated the USAID programs that delivered crucial health care and crisis relief. Medical studies project that millions of people will die as a result in the coming years. Australia uses that architecture to help change the world for the better. Trump is making that work much harder. Trump is repealing all US programs that combat global warming - the most important environmental issue of our times and the number-one existential security issue for Asia-Pacific nations. Australia shares their urgency. Since Trump's inauguration, AUKUS has consistently been viewed as a bellwether for the relationship. Australia's need for a modern submarine fleet is an existential issue for the country's defence capability. Will Trump, during the Pentagon's review of AUKUS, change its terms to be more favourable to the US? Is Australia spending enough on defence? Will the pace of submarine construction ensure Australia receives the subs in the 2030s? If not, are there better solutions than AUKUS? But the most important question is the most known unknown. What does Trump want from China? Trump has never outlined his endgame with President Xi Jinping. Yes, of course, the trade deal of the century. But at what price, particularly with respect to Taiwan? What are the consequences of all the scenarios and what does Australia need to do to be prepared? Trump is president and will continue to act with power and drama. Albanese will respond on behalf of Australia. That would be business as usual. But without the benefit of a considered national conversation about the future of the Australian-US alliance and what is in Australia's national interest, the current state of play does not rise to the challenges posed by Trump to Australia. US baseball legend Yogi Berra once said, "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." That's where we are. Let's talk about it. Seven months after Donald Trump was inaugurated for a second term as US president, we are facing the most important moment in Australia's foreign policy since the Iraq war. Australia needs to have a national conversation on the future of its alliance with the United States. The alliance was on the line with Trump's tariff decisions on August 1. The consensus was Australia dodged a bullet, and life goes on. But this was no flesh wound. By dictating and unilaterally imposing the terms of trade between the US and Australia - affirming the "reciprocal tariffs" of 10 per cent imposed on Australia, plus the tariffs of 50 per cent on both steel and aluminium - Trump has trashed the historic US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Trump has not provided a good answer to the question of what he is doing to one of the US's strongest and most consistent allies. And there is more to come. The president will also place a tariff on US imports of Australian pharmaceuticals. There is also far more to come on the future of the US-Australia alliance. Media have been full of opinions on what the relationship between the two countries ought to look like. These interventions have assayed the crucial importance of Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese meeting personally with Trump; whether Washington was rattled by Albanese's visit to China, whether Australia should "fortify northern Australia into an allied military stronghold for the region"; and whether the relationship is being mismanaged. The best model for this conversation would be the economic roundtable Treasurer Jim Chalmers will host in Canberra this month. Its purpose, Albanese said, is to "build the broadest possible base of support for further economic reform". Why not apply the same process to the future of our foreign policy and alliance with the US? A similar roundtable, convened by the foreign minister and bringing together the smartest and most experienced people from across the political and foreign policy spectrum to discuss all these issues, would provide the best and most sincere guidance for the country. There are three bedrock truths that are unimpeachably clear since Trump reassumed power in the US. First, Australia has not changed; the US has changed. Albanese and his government has not changed its posture towards the US. Trump has profoundly changed America's posture towards Australia. Second, the US is no longer the leader of the free world, because the free world is no longer following America. The democracies with which the US has been allied since the end of the Second World War are no longer acting in concert with the US, but in reaction to what Trump is doing across the global landscape - from the Americas, to the Atlantic, Russia, the Middle East, China, the Indo-Pacific and Australia. Third, Trump has destroyed the economic and trading architecture erected after the Second World War to promote growth and prosperity. Nations engaging economically with the US are no longer trading partners but trading victims. The "deals" Trump boasts about are involuntary. Trump's imposition of tariffs even on countries with a trade deficit with the US shows that his trade policy is, at heart, the unilateral exercise of US political power to force concessions to US domination. What is under profound challenge today - 84 years after prime minister John Curtin turned to the US and 73 years after the ANZUS treaty came into effect - is whether the US under Trump is still aligned with the vision the two countries have shared for decades. Australians have serious doubts about the relationship. The latest polling by Resolve Political Monitor documented "a strong desire for the country to assert more independence from the United States amid Donald Trump's turbulent presidency". Fewer than 20 per cent of Australian voters believe Trump's election victory was good for Australia. Nearly half of voters believe it would be "a good thing" for Australia to act more independently of the US. Pew Research reported in July that only 35 per cent of Australians believe the US is a top ally. Trump is driving away US allies. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said after winning office, "Our old relationship with the United States, a relationship based on steadily increasing integration, is over." When the leaders of Japan and South Korea received Trump's insulting letters of demarche on trade, they each said the correspondence was "deeply regrettable", with Japan's prime minister adding, "extremely disrespectful". Trump has also precipitated a trade war with India. How effective can the Quad - established by the US, Japan, India and Australia to serve as a counterweight to China - be if three of its four members are victims of Trump's tariffs? Australia has also broken with Trump on recognition of Palestine - issues of the highest importance to the president. Moreover, if the terms of whatever Trump is conjuring up with Putin to end the war with Ukraine are unacceptable to Ukraine and Europe, and Trump sides with Putin, a further sharp break by Australia with Trump is likely. The "soft power" wielded by Australia is also involved here. From the UN's inception, Australia has supported the architecture required to help secure peace, security, stability and the health and welfare of all peoples. But Trump has now withdrawn the US from UNESCO, the World Health Organisation, the World Trade Organisation, the Paris climate accords, the UN Human Rights Commission and others. He has terminated the USAID programs that delivered crucial health care and crisis relief. Medical studies project that millions of people will die as a result in the coming years. Australia uses that architecture to help change the world for the better. Trump is making that work much harder. Trump is repealing all US programs that combat global warming - the most important environmental issue of our times and the number-one existential security issue for Asia-Pacific nations. Australia shares their urgency. Since Trump's inauguration, AUKUS has consistently been viewed as a bellwether for the relationship. Australia's need for a modern submarine fleet is an existential issue for the country's defence capability. Will Trump, during the Pentagon's review of AUKUS, change its terms to be more favourable to the US? Is Australia spending enough on defence? Will the pace of submarine construction ensure Australia receives the subs in the 2030s? If not, are there better solutions than AUKUS? But the most important question is the most known unknown. What does Trump want from China? Trump has never outlined his endgame with President Xi Jinping. Yes, of course, the trade deal of the century. But at what price, particularly with respect to Taiwan? What are the consequences of all the scenarios and what does Australia need to do to be prepared? Trump is president and will continue to act with power and drama. Albanese will respond on behalf of Australia. That would be business as usual. But without the benefit of a considered national conversation about the future of the Australian-US alliance and what is in Australia's national interest, the current state of play does not rise to the challenges posed by Trump to Australia. US baseball legend Yogi Berra once said, "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." That's where we are. Let's talk about it.
ABC News
12 hours ago
- ABC News
Rice nearly sank US tariff talks until Japan finally agreed to take more American grain
For decades, Japan's tight protection of its rice market — a symbol of cultural pride, postwar resilience and self-sufficiency — blocked broader trade deals. Last month, rice was once again a sticking point during negotiations over the US "reciprocal tariffs" with President Donald Trump calling Japan a "spoiled" country that "won't take our rice". However, this time Mr Trump forged what he framed as a tariffs breakthrough: Japan importing more US rice. Rice prices have nearly doubled since last year across Japan. A perfect storm of supply miscalculations and a bad harvest left supermarket shelves bare and sparked rare street protests, triggering the government to release emergency stockpiles. But still the question remains: Are the Japanese public able to stomach foreign rice? Rice is integral to history and political power in Japan. Rice planting festivals remain an important ritual in rural areas, alongside offerings to ancestors during ceremonies to gods or weddings. "It's a delicate tightrope between price and protecting our identity," said Yusuke Yokoyama, a Tokyo resident, who noticed many local restaurants had stopped offering free "refill" rice. "People in Japan are generally happy to have lower prices for rice, but they also don't want to import it," he said. In the late 19th century, as Japan faced geopolitical tensions while opening up to the West, rice was even woven into the military transformation. Mr Yokoyama explained that many Japanese were aware of the historical connection of rice as a symbol of Japanese identity and sovereignty. For example, a "rice wage" was an incentive to recruit soldiers, expanding from the previous exclusive samurai class. In a nation where rice farming has been politically protected since the 1970s, the crisis is exposing the structural fragility of its agricultural sector. Rice emerged as a top-three issue for voters in polling ahead of recent municipal elections, as customers and restaurants struggled with inflation and the far-right Sanseito party capitalised on the outrage. CoCo ICHIBANYA, Japan's largest curry rice restaurant chain, raised its menu prices and saw a 5.2 per cent drop in customers between September last year and this year. Retailers are resorting to marketing gimmicks. Convenience store chain Lawson began selling rice balls made from the older grain, labelling them as "2023 Vintage" onigiri. The attempt at humour — or damage control — was mocked online. For decades, Tokyo maintained one of the most rigid agricultural systems in the developed world. Under the now-defunct "gentan" policy, farmers were paid not to grow rice, and strict production targets were set to manage supply. "Japan previously paid farmers to leave their fields fallow," said Jeffrey Kingston, professor of History and Asian Studies at Temple University Japan. "The idea was to keep prices stable. But now we see how this entire system — combined with high tariffs and climate shocks — has become untenable." Instead, it has contributed to what he describes as a "Byzantine" distribution network and mindset. "The youngest farmer I know is 65," Mr Kingston said. "The aging population will have adverse effects on the sector whether Tokyo likes it or not." Nicole Freiner, author of Rice and Agricultural Policies in Japan, said the government's program to subsidise farmers to limit rice production because of declining demand was short-sighted. "Even if Japan utilised most of its usable land, it still would not be self-sufficient," she said. Instead, she encouraged the government to react more to consumers switching to wheat-based food. "This policy created a lack of incentive for rice-growing that left rice paddies abandoned, with no opportunities for young farmers," Ms Freiner said. Japan's protectionist stance has long frustrated international trade partners. The United States, in particular, has pushed for greater access to Japan's rice market and the Trump administration made it their mission during the recent tariff negotiations. Some netizens pushed back, sharing clips of an anime film where a Japanese character tells a pushy US politician that Japanese consumers prefer home-grown rice over California rice. Japan imports 770,000 tonnes of foreign rice annually — but much of it has traditionally been used for processing or animal feed, not table rice. Tokyo reached a deal with Washington in the latest tariff deal, increasing the proportion of US rice allocated for household consumption. Mr Trump claimed that Japan had "caved" to US demands. Japan's Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba pushed back. "We made absolutely no sacrifice in the agricultural sector," he told local media. Marcel Thieliant, Asia Pacific analyst at Capital Economics, said Japan had negotiated cautiously, keeping the overall import quota unchanged, but a larger share of that quota would now come from the US, rather than other countries. He rejected the narrative from Washington of a sweeping victory. "I'm not aware of any plans to actually liberalise the market by lifting the import quota," he told the ABC. Other analysts said the proportion change of staple rice imports — even within existing frameworks — may have signalled a gradual shift away from hardline protectionism. "The [US] side deal is significant in symbolic terms; it may be an indication that Tokyo is becoming more willing to open its rice market — at least, when it needs help," Ms Freigner said. "Whether or not these changes take hold and become more entrenched is not clear yet," she added. For ordinary citizens, many remain uneasy and some local broadcasters have directed the blame at the rise in foreign tourists — including Australians — as Japan records an all-time high for international tourism figures. "As the yen falls, locals have started to become angry," said Mr Kingston. "They watch foreigners swaggering about, buying up real estate and eating cheap, while local households feel the pinch of inflation — even in their daily meal of rice." The situation, he added, had created "a sense of malaise gripping people here". Japan is struggling with low wages and inflation. Since the July agreement, Japanese supermarket prices have fallen following the government's release of stockpiled rice. But prices are still nearly double the same time last year. Industry analysts note that the increase in imports of rice for human consumption has been modest so far relative to the scale of the domestic supply shortfall, and distribution has yet to catch up with rising consumer demand. Last year's harvest was devastated by record-breaking heat. And with meteorological extremes becoming more common, experts say Japan's model of matching production to slowly declining demand is no longer sufficient. "Climate is affecting harvesting rice and other products," said Mr Yokoyama. "The policy may have to change. Our food security is not high, and people are starting to understand that now." A sense of frustration has grown among farmers, angry at the regulations limiting how much rice they can grow, which spilled over into protests earlier this year. Japan's food self-sufficiency rate has languished around 30–40 per cent for decades. Despite pledges to raise it, little has changed. One approach could be to subsidise farmers' production of rice instead of paying them not to, and export the surplus. "What the government should do now is stop subsidising crop conversion," said Yusaku Yoshikawa, an agricultural aid consultant with Japanese Official Development Assistance Projects. Already, the government has dipped into emergency stockpiles to manage supply, but analysts warn that short-term fixes can't resolve long-term instability. They must also be careful not to overcorrect, as producing too much rice now could lead to a glut and cause prices to crash. "We're in a delicate moment," Mr Yoshikawa said. "We've gone from rice scarcity last year to needing policy imagination. What's needed now is not just price control."
