Highlights

• China signals measured opposition to EU-U.S. critical minerals partnership while maintaining 'market principles' rhetoric, avoiding direct threats or escalation despite tracking Western diversification efforts closely.
• The one-year reprieve on rare earth export restrictions China granted the U.S. in 2025 is nearing its end, with American supply chains still years away from achieving resilience in separation, metals, and magnet manufacturing.
• Beijing's calm diplomatic tone may reflect confidence rather than concession, as it holds leverage over critical minerals while the U.S. and allies race to accelerate midstream capacity before potential supply disruptions.

---

China’s Foreign Ministry signaled (opens in a new tab) firm but measured opposition on Tuesday to reported discussions between the European Union and the United States over a proposed critical minerals partnership aimed at reducing reliance on Chinese supply chains. And of course, the USA on Wednesday, February 4th, hosted the 2026 Critical Mineral Ministerial (opens in a new tab) involving many dozens of nations.

Speaking at a regular press briefing, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian was asked by a Bloomberg reporter to comment on news that several foreign ministers were meeting in Washington to consider an also the EU-backed framework for cooperation on critical minerals.

Lin responded that China’s position “has not changed,” emphasizing that all countries share responsibility for maintaining the stability and security of global critical-mineral supply and industrial chains. He added that China believes parties should play a “constructive role” in safeguarding those systems.

Addressing references to a possible EU–U.S. memorandum of understanding, Lin reiterated Beijing’s long-standing stance: countries should adhere to market-economy principles and international trade rules, strengthen communication and dialogue, and work together to keep global industrial and supply chains “stable and unimpeded,” in order to support steady global economic growth.

Notably, Lin did not directly criticize the EU or the United States, nor did he threaten retaliation or name China explicitly as the target of diversification efforts—an omission that appears deliberate.

Why This Matters for Business and the West

The significance here is not what China said—but how it said it.

• Acknowledgment without endorsement: Beijing implicitly confirms it is tracking—and taking seriously—EU–U.S. coordination on critical minerals.
• Rules-based framing: By invoking “market principles” and “international trade rules,” China positions itself as a defender of the existing trade order, even as Western policymakers argue that the current system is structurally distorted by state-directed capacity.
• No escalation—for now: The absence of threats or new export measures suggests Beijing is observing first, not reacting publicly.

For U.S. and European firms, this reinforces that supply-chain diversification is being interpreted as a geopolitical signal, not a neutral industrial policy.

The One-Year Reprieve: A Quiet Clock Is Ticking

What went unsaid at the podium—but looms large for industry—is that China effectively granted the United States a one-year reprieve on rare earth access following the tightening of export licensing and controls in 2025. While never branded as a formal exemption, licensing flexibility and continuity of shipments functioned as a temporary pressure release valve, allowing U.S. defense (at least partially), automotive, and advanced-manufacturing supply chains to avoid immediate disruption.

That window is now nearing its end.

Despite unprecedented policy activity in Washington and allied capitals, the U.S. is not close to resilience across the rare earth value chain—particularly in separation, metals, alloys, and magnet manufacturing. New projects remain years from scale. Recycling helps at the margin. Stockpiles buy time—but do not replace production.

The Strategic Question No One Wants to Answer—Yet

As the reprieve winds down, a set of uncomfortable questions emerges:

• Will China quietly tighten licensing again, using “market rules” rather than bans?
• Will pricing, delays, or compliance frictions become the preferred pressure tools?
• Can the U.S. and its allies accelerate midstream capacity fast enough to avoid a supply shock?

Beijing’s calm tone may signal confidence—notconcession.

Bottom Line

China is publicly urging cooperation and market discipline while privately holding the most powerful lever in the system. As EU–U.S. coordination accelerates, Beijing is signaling it intends to contest the mechanics of diversification without triggering an immediate confrontation.

Time, however, is not neutral—and the grace period is almost over.

Disclaimer: This news item originates from reporting by Sina Finance, a media outlet in China owned by New Wave Holdings Limited (controlled by Charles Chao (Cao Guowei)). The information and official statements cited should be independently verified and interpreted within the broader context of trade, export-control, and diplomatic developments.