Battle for Critical Minerals: The U.S. Forms Alliances to Exert Pressure, Europe Seeks Alternative Paths, Undercurrents Stir in Global Supply Chains.

On [date], at Shimizu Port in Shizuoka Prefecture, Japan, the ocean research vessel "Chikyu" slowly set sail. Its destination was the waters near Minamitorishima, approximately [number] kilometers southeast of Tokyo, with a mission to conduct an unprecedented trial—experimental mining of rare-earth mud from the seabed at a depth of about [number] meters within Japan's exclusive economic zone. Almost simultaneously, in Washington, D.C., an emergency meeting was being prepared, bringing together finance ministers from the G7 nations as well as Australia, India, South Korea, Mexico, and others. From the deep sea to international conference halls, a global contest centered on critical minerals, aimed at weakening China's dominance, was unfolding with unprecedented urgency.

Washington's "Urgent" Clarion Call: A Belated Mobilization

The Washington meeting on the 30th was the result of intense efforts by U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent since the Canadian Leaders' Summit in March. At that time, he presented to the attending heads of state a picture of the fragility of the rare earth supply chain. Although the summit reached an action plan aimed at strengthening supply chains and economic resilience, Bessent has grown "increasingly frustrated" with the slow pace of follow-up actions. A senior U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, stated bluntly, "Urgency is the theme of the day. This is a very large task, involving many different angles and many different countries, and we really need to speed things up."

This "sense of urgency" is backed by cold, hard data. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), China holds an absolute dominance of 70% to 90% in the refining of critical minerals, covering copper, lithium, cobalt, graphite, and rare earths. These minerals are the lifeblood of defense technologies, semiconductors, renewable energy components, batteries, and refining processes. The countries participating in this Washington meeting collectively account for 75% of global demand for critical minerals, yet most of them, with the exception of Japan, remain heavily dependent on China.

Japan's "exception" stems from a painful lesson in 2010, when China abruptly halted the supply of critical minerals to Japan, forcing Tokyo to embark on a decade-long effort to diversify its supply chains. In contrast, other countries, according to U.S. officials, have yet to demonstrate sufficient crisis awareness amid China's threat to impose stricter export controls. Days before the meeting, reports emerged that China had begun restricting exports of rare earths and rare-earth-containing high-performance magnets to Japanese companies, as well as prohibiting the export of dual-use items to Japan's military. This undoubtedly cast a realistic shadow over the meeting in Washington.

The United States is attempting to assume the role of convener and leader. "The U.S. is in a position to bring everyone together, demonstrate leadership, and share our vision for the future," the American official stated. "We are prepared to act with those who share a similar sense of urgency... Others can join once they recognize the seriousness of the issue." However, the meeting is expected to result only in a statement, with little likelihood of producing a concrete joint action plan. This reveals the reality of misaligned steps and divergent interests within the alliance.

Europe's Caution and Divergence: Seeking Both Security and Sovereignty

Across the Atlantic, Europe's response appears more complex and cautious. German Vice Chancellor and Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil clearly drew a red line before flying to Washington. Addressing U.S. President Trump's repeated intentions to control Greenland, Klingbeil emphasized, "The future of Greenland is for Denmark and Greenland to decide. Territorial sovereignty and integrity must be respected. These principles of international law apply to everyone—including the United States." He further noted, "We, as NATO allies, enhance Arctic security together, not through confrontation with each other."

Germany's stance reflects the mainstream attitude in Europe: on one hand, they deeply perceive the risks associated with the concentration of critical mineral supply chains and are willing to take "joint actions" to enhance supply chain security; on the other hand, they remain wary of the unilateral and assertive geopolitical measures adopted by the United States, particularly opposing solutions that come at the cost of undermining international rules and alliances. Klingbeil described the trip to Washington as entering "Trump's cave," implying the high degree of uncertainty and potential risks involved in this visit.

Meanwhile, German Foreign Minister John Wadepool has also departed for the United States, planning to meet with Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Wadepool stated that he is traveling not only as Germany's foreign minister but also as Europe's foreign minister. This statement underscores the European Union's efforts to address challenges with a unified stance. His itinerary also includes a stop in Iceland to meet with the Icelandic foreign minister, highlighting the central role of the Arctic region in this strategic contest.

In terms of specific policies, Europe appears to lean more toward market-based coordination mechanisms. Following the Washington meeting, Klinken revealed that partner countries had discussed the possibility of setting price floors for critical minerals such as rare earths. He noted that this was "not to confront anyone, but to strengthen cooperation among partners," with the benefit of providing predictable prices and minimizing the influence of countries attempting to manipulate market prices. However, he also acknowledged that "there are still many issues to clarify in the coming weeks" and believed further consultations among foreign ministers and energy ministers were necessary. The price floor mechanism, while seemingly an economic tool, is essentially an attempt to establish a non-Chinese "producer cartel" to counter China's market influence through collective bargaining power. Yet, its feasibility and enforceability remain significant question marks.

Greenland: A Treasure Trove of Resources or a Geopolitical Mirage?

America's obsession with Greenland has thrust the world's largest island into the spotlight. Trump's remark—"We're going to do something with Greenland, whether they like it or not"—along with concerns about preventing China and Russia from gaining control over the island, has infused discussions about critical minerals with a heavy geopolitical undertone.

The resource potential of Greenland is indeed astonishing. Research indicates that beneath its ice sheet, there are at least three rare earth deposits that could be among the world's largest in terms of reserves. It is estimated that the reserves of dysprosium and neodymium there are sufficient to meet more than a quarter of the world's future demand (approximately tens of thousands of tons). Additionally, it boasts abundant resources of lithium, graphite, oil, and natural gas. The United States Geological Survey estimates that northeastern Greenland may contain around billions of barrels of oil equivalent, comparable to the total proven oil reserves of the United States.

However, potential does not equal capability. Greenland's rare earth extraction faces nearly brutal practical challenges. Tracy Hughes, founder of the Critical Minerals Institute, pointedly notes: "The obsession with Greenland has always been more about geopolitical posturing—a narrative of military strategic interests and stock promotion—rather than providing realistic supply solutions for the tech industry. The hype far exceeds the hard science and economics behind these critical minerals."

The challenges are multidimensional: extreme remoteness and harsh climate, virtually non-existent infrastructure, lack of roads and railways, electricity must be generated on-site, and a skilled workforce must be brought in from outside. More critically, there is a technological bottleneck—Greenland's rare earth elements are often encased in a complex rock called "eudialyte," and no economically viable technology has yet been developed globally to extract rare earths from such rocks. In contrast, rare earth deposits in other parts of the world are mostly found in carbonatites, for which mature extraction methods already exist.

The environmental risks are equally enormous. Extracting rare earth elements requires the use of toxic chemicals and is often associated with radioactive uranium, which is nothing short of a nightmare for Greenland—an ecologically fragile region striving to build a thriving tourism industry. Ian Lange, an economics professor at the Colorado School of Mines specializing in rare earth research, metaphorically remarked, "Everyone is rushing toward the finish line. And if you go to Greenland, it’s like going back to the starting point."

Pragmatic voices within the industry suggest that rather than chasing the mirage of Greenland, the United States should focus on supporting projects with established pathways. For example, investing in the only domestic rare earth mining company in the U.S., or strengthening cooperation with allies such as Australia. In [month] [year], the U.S. signed a project agreement worth billions of dollars with Australia, aimed at leveraging Australia’s strategic reserves to counter China’s [dominance]. Scott Dunn, CEO of Noveon Magnetics, whose company already uses non-Chinese sourced elements at its Texas plant to produce over [number] metric tons of magnets annually, believes that changing the status quo where over [percentage]% of rare earths come from China will take time and should start from areas with a proven track record of successful delivery.

Japan's Role: Technological Reserves and Deep-Sea Ambitions

In this global supply chain restructuring, Japan is viewed by the United States as a key partner and may even play a "core" role. This is no coincidence; it stems from its unique historical lessons and technological reserves.

The "supply cutoff" crisis of the year forced Japan to establish relatively diversified supply channels and a substantial strategic reserve. More importantly, Japan has retained highly advanced technology in rare earth separation and refining. Professor Kentaro Nakamura of the University of Tokyo pointed out that Japan cannot compete with China on cost, but its high-end "separation and refining" technology is a valuable asset. He warned that if the industry continues to shrink, talent and know-how will be lost. As Japan still possesses these capabilities, timely scaling up is crucial.

Japan's seabed rare earth mud mining plan is a radical attempt to secure supply chain autonomy. The rare earth mud in the waters around Minamitorishima is rich in rare earth elements, with the key advantage of containing almost no radioactive substances such as uranium and thorium. This means that the entire chain from mining to refining could potentially be completed within Japan, avoiding significant environmental regulatory hurdles and geopolitical risks. Japan plans to assess commercial feasibility through this trial, aiming to commence large-scale mining experiments starting next February, with the capacity to extract up to tons of rare earth-bearing sediment per day.

Japan's path selection reveals a reality: the "de-sinicization" of supply chains is not a simple substitution of production locations, but a comprehensive trade-off involving technological routes, environmental standards, cost structures, and geopolitical risks. Deep-sea mining technology is extremely difficult and costly, but if successful, it will open up a completely new supply chain entirely independent of traditional land-based mines. This is both a technological adventure and a strategic investment.Japan's path selection reveals a reality: the "de-sinicization" of supply chains is not a simple substitution of production locations, but a comprehensive trade-off involving technological routes, environmental standards, cost structures, and geopolitical risks. Deep-sea mining technology is extremely difficult and costly, but if successful, it will open up a completely new supply chain entirely independent of traditional land-based mines. This is both a technological adventure and a strategic investment.

The Paradox of Refactoring and the Uncertain Future

The Washington Conference and the ensuing global actions mark a paradigm shift in critical mineral supply chains from "efficiency-first" to "security-first." However, this restructuring is fraught with paradoxes.

First, the contradiction between urgency and complexity. The United States loudly calls for "speeding up," but whether it's pioneering in Greenland, exploring deep-sea mining, or building new smelting capacity, these are all massive projects that are capital-intensive, have long cycles, and involve technological uncertainties—they cannot be accomplished overnight. Establishing alternative supply chains requires a decade or even longer, while geopolitical frictions can change in an instant.

Secondly, the contradiction between alliance coordination and interest differentiation. Although the G7 and its partner countries share common anxieties, their respective interest demands differ. The United States focuses on great power competition and global leadership; Europe seeks a balance between security and sovereignty, as well as environmental standards; resource-rich countries like Australia and Greenland (through Denmark) aim to maximize resource value; Japan pursues technological self-reliance and supply chain control. Establishing cooperation such as price floors requires extremely delicate interest balancing and enforcement mechanisms, which is no easy task. Secondly, the contradiction between alliance coordination and interest differentiation. Although the G7 and its partner countries share common anxieties, their respective interest demands differ. The United States focuses on great power competition and global leadership; Europe seeks a balance between security and sovereignty, as well as environmental standards; resource-rich countries like Australia and Greenland (through Denmark) aim to maximize resource value; Japan pursues technological self-reliance and supply chain control. Establishing cooperation such as price floors requires extremely delicate interest balancing and enforcement mechanisms, which is no easy task.

Third, Contradiction Between Environmental Goals and Mining Reality. Promoting the energy transition requires a large amount of critical minerals, but the extraction of these minerals itself may cause severe environmental damage, especially in ecologically sensitive areas like Greenland. This creates a dual ethical and practical dilemma: Does accelerating extraction to save the global climate come at the cost of destroying fragile local ecosystems?

Finally, the duality of China's role. China is both a "single point of failure" risk in the supply chain and the largest supplier and market that cannot be bypassed at present. Even under tense circumstances, China continues to fulfill its commitments to purchase American soybeans and ship critical minerals to U.S. companies. This interdependence is difficult to completely sever in the short term.

In the future, the competition for critical minerals will unfold across multiple fronts: the technological front (deep-sea mining, new extraction processes, recycling technologies), the diplomatic front (building "like-minded" supply alliances), the financial front (government subsidies, price supports, project investments), and the standards front (environmental, labor, and transparency standards). China cannot respond passively; its market influence, complete industrial chain, and cost advantages remain powerful weapons.

Global supply chains are becoming "politicized" and "bloc-oriented," yet economic principles and physical realities will ultimately set the boundaries for this contest. The true test for nations lies in whether they can strike that delicate and challenging balance between ensuring security and maintaining efficiency, pursuing autonomy and preserving openness, accelerating transformation and protecting the environment. The rare earth mud on the ocean floor, the mineral deposits beneath the ice caps, and the negotiating tables in Washington collectively sketch a new century-spanning picture where resources, technology, and power intertwine—and its final form is far from settled.