China’s Embargo of Critical Minerals

Highlights

• China imposes export restrictions on critical minerals, including gallium, germanium, antimony, and graphite.
• Targeted sectors include advanced manufacturing and military technologies.
• The export ban was framed as retaliation against US semiconductor technology restrictions.
• Highlights escalating trade tensions between two global powers.
• Potential global supply chain disruptions in semiconductors, EV batteries, and critical technologies.
• Underscores the strategic importance of mineral trade.

---

Four days ago, Elaine Kurtenbach, writing for AP, offered a relatively detailed analysis of China’s recent export bans on critical minerals like gallium and germanium, contextualizing the decision within the broader U.S.-China trade tensions. Below is an evaluation of the key points, perspectives, and depth of coverage.

Key Points

Bangkok-based Kurtenbach is AP’s business editor for Asia, working on reporting involving regional economies, climate change, and the transition toward carbon-free energy. She has been covering economic, social, environmental, and political trends in China, Japan, and Southeast Asia throughout her career.

What are her key points?

First, Kurtenbach outlines the materials impacted by China’s embargo—gallium, germanium, antimony, and graphite—and their strategic importance in advanced manufacturing and military applications.

Second, the AP writer suggests the U.S. is now measuring a response. The article frames China’s actions as a retaliation to the U.S. expanding export controls on semiconductor-related technologies, detailing both nations’ claims of national security concerns.

The reporter discusses potential disruptions in supply chains for semiconductors, EV batteries, and other critical technologies, underscoring the global significance of these materials.

Kurtenbach explores alternative sources for these materials, such as recycling and tapping domestic reserves in the U.S., alongside international partnerships like the Minerals Security Partnership.

What about looking at all sides?

Kurtenbach briefly incorporates China’s point of view, emphasizing its framing of the export restrictions as a response to perceived U.S. provocations. Statements from Chinese industry groups are included, criticizing U.S. chip restrictions and declaring them unreliable. However, the article does not deeply explore China’s internal reasoning, strategic objectives, or any potential domestic pressures influencing the embargo.

Perhaps some bias, or at least some assumptions, are made by the reporter.  The framing of the actions is pure retaliation in this article—assuming a tit-for-tat dynamic. She portrays China’s embargo as purely a retaliatory action without fully analyzing other possible strategic motivations, such as economic protectionism or technological independence.

The AP piece, not surprisingly, focuses on U.S. and allied (West) solutions. While detailing the U.S. and allied nations’ efforts to reduce dependence on China, Kurtenbach does not equally assess the feasibility and costs of these measures, particularly the environmental and economic challenges of mining in Western countries.

The piece assumes that this embargo could mark a “tipping point,” framing the situation as inevitably escalating tensions rather than exploring pathways for de-escalation or compromise.

The AP piece does address industrial concerns by discussing the dependence of U.S. and allied industries on Chinese supplies and the challenges of diversifying sources.

However, the article could delve deeper into the specific impact on sectors like consumer electronics, automotive, renewable energy, and defense. The piece provides a broad overview rather than industry-specific examples or commentary from business leaders.

Conclusions and Implications

The recent AP piece effectively situates China’s export bans within the larger narrative of U.S.-China trade tensions and highlights the strategic significance of the materials in question. While the article provides valuable context, a more balanced inclusion of China’s strategic reasoning, a deeper dive into industrial reactions, and a critical look at the practicality of alternative supply chains would have enhanced its comprehensiveness.