Highlights
- Andrew King argues the U.S. must urgently develop rare earth mineral capabilities to counter China’s global economic and technological control.
- The proposed strategy involves government-private sector collaboration.
- Strategic alliances with resource-rich countries like Australia and Canada are essential.
- Comprehensive policy reform is needed.
- King’s ‘Manhattan Project’ approach, while compelling, may oversimplify the complex geopolitical, environmental, and market challenges of rare earth mineral development.
Andrew King, (opens in a new tab) the author of an article (opens in a new tab) in the conservative and sensationalist-leaning New York Post, calls for a Manhattan Project involving rare earth elements to help the U.S. overcome China’s dominance. A partner at Bastille Ventures (opens in a new tab), a venture firm focusing on critical technologies related to national security, King clearly has some interest in such an accelerated public investment. He is also the founder of Future Union (opens in a new tab), an organization advocating for private-sector resistance to adversarial regimes like China. His article, published Sunday, December 8, 2024, emphasizes the urgent need for the United States to address its dependence on China for rare earth elements (REEs).
The New York Post, known for its conservative-leaning stance, frequently addresses national security, foreign policy, and economic issues from a perspective that prioritizes American competitiveness and independence.
King argues that the United States faces a critical and immediate challenge in securing rare earth elements, essential for both modern technology and national defense. And his urgency is not without merit. Read Rare Earth Exchanges “_China’s Strategy of Complete Domination: Without a Shot Fired._”
What are his key points?
First, there is the obvious declaration and recognition that China controls a vast majority of REE mining and processing globally, including materials critical for advanced technologies like semiconductors, magnets, and military systems.
But importantly that nation, the world’s number two economy and one that has a three-pronged plan to dominate the world economically –see China’s Strategy of Complete Domination: Without a Shot Fired.
King points out in the New York Post piece that Beijing treats rare earths as a strategic weapon, with military generals negotiating global mineral rights under a national-security mandate.
And it’s because of this reality that the author and venture capitalist call for a U.S. “Manhattan Project” to develop mining and refining capabilities with wartime urgency. The author’s imminence is clear when advocating for government-private sector collaboration, permitting reform, and forging alliances with resource-rich allies like Australia and Canada.
Taking a page from a Rare Earth Exchanges piece yesterday titled “Outflanking China in the Rare Earth Race: Strategies for the USA” the author in “The Post” calls for a global strategy, one that recognizes that the U.S. must integrate rare earths into foreign policy and establish a strategic focus on securing and developing these resources.
Of course, China did something like this decades ago while both Republican and Democratic regimes were asleep at the wheel. This includes the current incoming POTUS Trump, who, when governing for four years, only witnessed the acceleration of the Chinese execution in this sector.
Forecasting grave outcomes upon inaction, the author suggests delay and incremental approaches will lead to continued erosion of U.S. military and economic dominance.
Alternative Considerations
While King’s argument highlights valid concerns, it is important to consider alternative perspectives. First Rare Earth Exchanges calls out some key assumptions made by the author.
For one, he assumes that a militaristic, top-down “Manhattan Project” approach is the most effective solution. First, we remind everyone that if it were a Manhattan Project, the population would not even know about it. While the Manhattan Project ensued, few actually knew what was going on. In fact, in the age of cost-cutting and eradicating the so-called “Deep State,” it was actually the Manhattan Project that brought credibility to such clandestine operations. Some experts have argued that the Deep State itself evolved out of the successes of the Manhattan Project. The American public just elected a government to dismantle much of the state, at least symbolically.
Truth be told, especially in today’s world of social media, real-time news networks, and the urge for instant gratification, such impulses for centralized efforts may struggle to adapt to modern technological and environmental challenges. And let’s not forget the recent Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic (opens in a new tab) and how the Biden administration abused its powers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Were the American people pleased? From the evidence of this past election, apparently not.
King also assumes a zero-sum game where China’s gains are necessarily America’s losses, potentially overlooking opportunities for global cooperation in diversifying supply chains. Could it be the case that there are ways to leverage American markets in creative ways in collaboration with the Chinese? This collaboration could include the sharp dealing, and intensity incoming POTUS is known for.
Should it at least be considered? Remember, a key assumption is that expertise, know-how, and such are present in numbers for mass execution at scale. However, the Chinese rare earth complex cannot just be replicated via some formula, given that it has evolved over the decades.
At the same time, Rare Earth Exchanges has numerous articles that show the troubled rare earth complex in China. Bloated infrastructure, antiquated systems, corruption, and the like, are now subject to ongoing reform via the top-down edicts of the Chinese Communist Party’s head, Xi Jinping. He took office in March 2013. The office was first established in the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China in 1954 and successively held by Mao Zedong and Liu Shaoqi. Liu fell into political disgrace during the Cultural Revolution, after which the office became vacant. Jinping has usurped unprecedented powers since the days of Mao, and now, in top-down matters, instructs the whole integrated industry on how to become more “innovative.” American intelligence should probe the contradictory forces inherent in such a situation.
Our point herein is that perhaps the Manhattan Project approach, as suggested by the author, somehow misses the mark of what actually needs to be done today. We suggest the author brings with his writing a number of biases. King likely has a vested interest in national security and technology investments, which may influence his portrayal of the issue as existential and urgent, although we agree with him that the situation is more urgent than the average politician or “Joe” out there understands.
The article frames the challenge as a “war” rather than a market or diplomatic issue, possibly exaggerating the immediacy of the threat. Is it really a war? Or is it intense, bare-knuckle competition at the national and supranational level? When does such a reality cross into actual warfare? These are serious matters that deserve significant thought, contemplation, and discussion in our society.
What about his Manhattan Project analogy?
The Manhattan Project was a singular, time-limited effort to develop a specific technology (nuclear weapons) during World War II. Rare earth supply chains, by contrast, involve complex, decentralized industries spanning decades and requiring sustainability and environmental considerations.
True, it was incredibly effective. In fact, as we propose so much so the U.S. government kept the methodology into the Cold War. One could argue that many of our legacy problems with bloated, unaccountable government, to some extent, can be traced back to that very initiative.
Modern challenges like environmental regulations and market dynamics cannot be addressed solely with wartime mobilization analogies. True part of the incoming Trump administration will be to figure out ways to cut back on the administrative (including regulatory) state, meaning loosening up standards, including environmental requirements. But how far will American society let that go? The rare earth element supply chain includes some environmentally devastating track records, and it won’t be easy, say like flipping a switch with a top-down governmental program—to transcend the current reality.
Some Key Food for Thought
King’s article has compelling points we must acknowledge. We think his focus on the urgency of the situation is justified based on what we know here at Rare Earth Exchanges. He highlights the critical nature of the rare earth issue and the need for swift, decisive action.
Driven by a strategic vision, he advocates for leveraging alliances and integrating rare earths into national policy, which makes sense given the totality of the unfolding dynamics.
Moreover, King’s scope is broad**,** recognizing the multifaceted nature of China’s dominance in REEs, spanning economic, technological, and military dimensions.
On the other hand, the author and venture capitalist oversimplifies the situation, arguing that a “Manhattan Project” analogy is the answer, risking generalization of the nuanced, long-term nature of the REE challenge.
The author excludes the environmental challenges with such a vision for the standard New York Post reader. Rare earth mining has significant ecological impacts, which are not addressed in King’s call for permitting reform, likely at the expense of multiple ecologies.
Finally, some basic economic pragmatism seems to be missing in action. A purely militarized framing could hinder market-driven solutions and international collaboration. And has he noted how the Deep State came into being? The Manhattan Project was instrumental. In fact, it was so successful it carried over new projects into the 1950s and 1960s which became what is today the so-called Deep State, the very specter the American people just voted against.
King also does not understand well, or he doesn’t share with the reader the contradictory forces today inherent in China’s rare earth complex. We track these in Rare Earth Exchanges, so hopefully, he will become a reader.
Final Rare Earth Exchanges Takeaway
King’s article effectively underscores the strategic risks posed by U.S. reliance on China for rare earth elements. However, his call for a “Manhattan Project” approach might be an overly simplistic solution to a multifaceted issue. While his argument for urgency and mobilization is compelling, it overlooks market dynamics, environmental challenges, and potential for multilateral cooperation, even with China itself. He also perhaps may not understand the challenges and contradictions in China’s rare earth complex itself. A balanced strategy combining government leadership, private-sector innovation, and international partnerships may be more effective in addressing the rare earth challenge. The American people may not be accepting of more Manhattan Project-style deep state-like directions, given the very necessary secrecy and clandestine nature of such an imperative. But we could be wrong.
Daniel
You Might Also Like…