logo
Why China's rare earth exports are a key issue in trade tensions with US

Why China's rare earth exports are a key issue in trade tensions with US

Al Jazeera2 days ago

China's export of rare earth elements is central to the trade deal struck this week with the United States.
Beijing has a virtual monopoly on the supply of the critical minerals, which are used to make everything from cars to drones and wind turbines.
Earlier this year, Beijing leveraged its dominance of the sector to hit back at US President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs, placing export controls on seven rare earths and related products.
The restrictions created a headache for global manufacturers, particularly automakers, who rely on the materials.
After talks in Geneva in May, the US and China announced a 90-day pause on their escalating tit-for-tat tariffs, during which time US levies would be reduced from 145 percent to 30 percent and Chinese duties from 125 percent to 10 percent.
The truce had appeared to be in jeopardy in recent weeks after Washington accused Beijing of not moving fast enough to ease its restrictions on rare earths exports.
After two days of marathon talks in London, the two sides on Wednesday announced a 'framework' to get trade back on track.
Trump said the deal would see rare earth minerals 'supplied, up front,' though many details of the agreement are still unclear.
Rare earths are a group of 17 elements that are essential to numerous manufacturing industries.
The auto industry has become particularly reliant on rare-earth magnets for steering systems, engines, brakes and many other parts.
China has long dominated the mining and processing of rare earth minerals, as well as the production of related components like rare earth magnets.
It mines about 70 percent of the world's rare earths and processes approximately 90 percent of the supply. China also maintains near-total control over the supply of heavy rare earths, including dysprosium and terbium.
China's hold over the industry had been a concern for the US and other countries for some time, but their alarm grew after Beijing imposed export controls in April.
The restrictions affected supplies of samarium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, lutetium, scandium, and yttrium, and required companies shipping materials and finished products overseas to obtain export licences.
The restrictions followed a similar move by China in February, when it placed export controls on tungsten, bismuth and three other 'niche metals'.
While news of a deal on rare earths signals a potential reprieve for manufacturers, the details of its implementation remain largely unclear.
Chinese customs data shows the sale of rare earths to the US dropped 37 percent in April, while the sale of rare earth magnets fell 58 percent for the US and 51 percent worldwide, according to Bloomberg.
Global rare earth exports recovered 23 percent in May, following talks between US and Chinese officials in Geneva, but they are still down overall from a year earlier.
The greatest alarm has been felt by carmakers and auto parts manufacturers in the US and Europe, who reported bottlenecks after working their way through inventories of rare earth magnets.
'The automobile industry is now using words like panic. This isn't something that the auto industry is just talking about and trying to make a big stir. This is serious right now, and they're talking about shutting down production lines,' Mark Smith, a mining and mineral processing expert and the CEO of the US-based NioCorp Developments, told Al Jazeera.
Even with news of a breakthrough, Western companies are still worried about their future access to rare earths and magnets and how their dependence on China's supply chain could be leveraged against them.
The Financial Times reported on Thursday that China's Ministry of Commerce has been demanding 'sensitive business information to secure rare earths and magnets' from Western companies in China, including production details and customer lists.
Trump shared some details of the agreement on his social media platform, Truth Social, where he also addressed concerns about rare earths and rare earth magnets.
'We are getting a total of 55% tariffs, China is getting 10%. The relationship is excellent,' Trump said, using a figure for US duties that includes levies introduced during his first term.
'Full magnets, and any necessary rare earths, will be supplied, up front, by China. Likewise, we will provide to China what was agreed to, including Chinese students using our colleges and universities (which has always been good with me),' Trump said.
Ahead of the negotiations in London, China's Ministry of Commerce had said it approved an unspecified number of export licences for rare earths, and it was willing to 'further strengthen communication and dialogue on export controls with relevant countries'.
However, an op-ed published by state news outlet Xinhua this week said rare earth export controls were not 'short-term bargaining tools' or 'tactical countermeasures' but a necessary measure because rare earths can be used for both civilian and military purposes.
NioCorp Developments' Smith said Beijing is unlikely to quickly give up such powerful leverage over the US entirely.
'There's going to be a whole bunch of words, but I really think China is going to hold the US hostage on this issue, because why not?' he said.
'They've worked really hard to get into the position that they're in. They have 100 percent control over the heavy rare earth production in the world. Why not use that?'
Deborah Elms, the head of trade policy at the Hinrich Foundation in Singapore, said it was hard to predict how rare earths would be treated in negotiations, which would need to balance other US concerns like China's role in exporting the deadly opioid fentanyl to the US.
Beijing, for its part, will want guarantees that it can access advanced critical US technology to make advanced semiconductors, she said.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Judge rules Mahmoud Khalil can remain in custody amid green card dispute
Judge rules Mahmoud Khalil can remain in custody amid green card dispute

Al Jazeera

time3 hours ago

  • Al Jazeera

Judge rules Mahmoud Khalil can remain in custody amid green card dispute

A United States federal judge has allowed the administration of President Donald Trump to keep student protester Mahmoud Khalil in custody based on allegations of immigration fraud. On Friday, Judge Michael Farbiarz of Newark, New Jersey, ruled that Khalil's legal team had not adequately shown why his detention on the charge would be unlawful. It was a major setback for Khalil, who had been a negotiator for the student protesters at Columbia University demonstrating against Israel's war on Gaza. He was the first high-profile protester to be arrested under Trump's campaign to expel foreign students who participated in pro-Palestinian advocacy. Just this week, Farbiarz appeared poised to order Khalil's release, on the basis that his detention under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 was unconstitutional. That law stipulates that the secretary of state – in this case, Marco Rubio – has the power to remove foreign nationals who have 'potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States'. But Farbiarz ruled that Rubio's use of the law violated Khalil's freedom of speech. Still, the Trump administration filed additional court papers saying it had another reason for wanting to deport Khalil. It alleged that Khalil, a permanent US resident, had omitted information from his green-card application that would have otherwise disqualified him from gaining residency. The Trump administration has long accused Khalil of supporting terrorism through his protest-related activities, something the former graduate student has vehemently denied. In the case of his green-card application, it argues that Khalil failed to disclose his work with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), a humanitarian organisation. Politicians in Israel and the US have accused UNRWA of ties to the armed group Hamas, an allegation reportedly made without evidence. Khalil, however, has denied he was ever an 'officer' in UNRWA, as alleged. Instead, his legal team points out that he completed a United Nations internship through Columbia University. The Trump administration also argues that Khalil did not accurately identify the length of his employment with the Syria Office of the British Embassy in Beirut. Khalil and his legal team, meanwhile, say he accurately identified his departure date from the job as December 2022. Judge Farbiarz had set Friday morning as a deadline for the Trump administration to appeal Khalil's release on bail. But that deadline was extended to give the government more time to challenge Khalil's release. Ultimately, Farbiarz allowed the Trump administration to continue its detention of Khalil. He advised Khalil's lawyers to seek release on bail from the immigration court where his deportation trial is being held in Louisiana. Farbiarz had been weighing a separate habeas corpus petition from the Khalil team that called into question the constitutionality of his continued detention. Marc Van Der Hout, a lawyer for Khalil, told the Reuters news agency that immigration fraud charges are exceedingly rare, and the Trump administration's use of such charges was simply a political manoeuvre to keep Khalil in lock-up. 'Detaining someone on a charge like this is highly unusual and frankly outrageous,' said Van Der Hout. 'There continues to be no constitutional basis for his detention.' Another lawyer representing Khalil, Amy Greer, described the new allegations against his green-card application as part of the government's 'cruel, transparent delay tactics'. She noted that Khalil, a new father whose child was born in April, would miss his first Father's Day, which falls this Sunday in the US. 'Instead of celebrating together, he is languishing in ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] detention as punishment for his advocacy on behalf of his fellow Palestinians,' Greer said in a statement. 'It is unjust, it is shocking, and it is disgraceful.'

US Marines arrive at Los Angeles federal sites as court battle unfolds
US Marines arrive at Los Angeles federal sites as court battle unfolds

Al Jazeera

time7 hours ago

  • Al Jazeera

US Marines arrive at Los Angeles federal sites as court battle unfolds

The United States Marines have deployed to Los Angeles following criticism and legal battles over whether President Donald Trump had the authority to use the military to quell civilian protests without state approval. On Friday, Major General Scott Sherman of the US Army confirmed that 200 Marines were arriving in southern California to protect a federal building. A total of 700 Marines have been authorised for deployment to the region. 'I would like to emphasise that the soldiers will not participate in law enforcement activities,' Sherman said during a briefing. The Marines join National Guard troops already in the Los Angeles area following the eruption of protests on June 6, when residents took to the streets to express their displeasure with President Trump's immigration raids, some of which targeted local hardware stores and other workplaces. While many of the demonstrations were mostly peaceful and limited to a small part of the city, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) did experience tense clashes with some protesters, who hurled objects and set driverless Waymo vehicles on fire. Police responded with flashbangs, tear gas and rubber bullets. Trump, meanwhile, dubbed the protesters 'bad people' and 'insurrectionists' and announced the deployment of the National Guard on the evening of June 7. The president cited Title 10 of the US Code, which allows a president to call up the National Guard if there is a 'rebellion or danger of rebellion' against the federal government. Trump and his allies framed the demonstrators as part of a migrant 'invasion' imperilling the US. 'To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States,' Trump wrote in a presidential memorandum. It was the first time since 1965 that a US president had authorised the National Guard's deployment to a state without the governor's permission. The last time was to protect civil rights protesters who were marching through segregated Alabama and faced threats of violence. Presidents have called up the National Guard to address domestic unrest in the years since, but only with the cooperation of local authorities. In 1992, for instance, then-President Bill Clinton answered a request from California's governor at the time to send National Guard members to address the Rodney King protests in Los Angeles. Trump's decision to circumvent the authority of California's present-day governor, Gavin Newsom, has led to a legal fight over whether he exceeded his powers as president. Newsom filed a lawsuit to block the use of military troops outside of federal sites, and on Thursday, a pair of court decisions left the future of the recent deployment unclear. First, on Thursday afternoon, District Court Judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco sided with Newsom, calling Trump's actions 'illegal' and a violation of the US Constitution. In his 36-page decision, Breyer ruled that the Trump administration had failed to show a danger of rebellion in Los Angeles. 'While Defendants have pointed to several instances of violence, they have not identified a violent, armed, organized, open and avowed uprising against the government as a whole,' he wrote. 'The definition of rebellion is unmet.' He added that he was 'troubled' by the Trump administration's argument that a protest against the federal government could be tantamount to rebellion, warning that such logic could violate the First Amendment right to free speech. 'Individuals' right to protest the government is one of the fundamental rights protected by the First Amendment, and just because some stray bad actors go too far does not wipe out that right for everyone,' Breyer said. He called for an injunction against Trump's use of National Guard members, saying 'it sets a dangerous precedent for future domestic military activity' and 'deprives the state for two months of its own use of thousands of National Guard members'. Nearly 4,000 members of the California National Guard have been authorised for deployment to Los Angeles under Trump's command. But the Trump administration quickly appealed Judge Breyer's injunction. By late Thursday, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals had temporarily blocked the injunction, allowing Trump to continue using the National Guard until a hearing could be held on the matter next week. On Friday, Trump celebrated that decision on his social media platform, Truth Social. 'The Appeals Court ruled last night that I can use the National Guard to keep our cities, in this case Los Angeles, safe,' Trump wrote. 'If I didn't send the Military into Los Angeles, that city would be burning to the ground right now. We saved L.A. Thank you for the Decision!!!' Newsom, meanwhile, has continued his call for Trump to end what he framed as illegal control of the National Guard. He has also accused the military presence of heightening tensions with protesters, not dissipating them. '@RealDonaldTrump, you must relinquish your authority of the National Guard back to me and back to California,' Newsom wrote on social media Thursday. He has called the Republican president's federalisation of the National Guard an 'unmistakable step toward authoritarianism'. The California governor is seen as a possible Democratic contender for the presidency in the 2028 election cycle.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store