Highlights
- Eric Ham’s BNN Bloomberg opinion piece explores the strategic tensions between the U.S. and China in the rare earth minerals market.
- The article critiques Ham’s speculative claims about potential U.S. territorial annexation and oversimplified geopolitical narratives.
- While acknowledging valid concerns about supply chain independence and resource sovereignty, the review suggests Ham’s analysis lacks nuanced geopolitical understanding.
In a July 19 opinion column for BNN Bloomberg (opens in a new tab), Washington-based political analyst Eric Ham delivers a theatrical narrative of rare earth geopolitics—complete with annexation fantasies, Arctic brinkmanship, and a besieged Canada caught between global titans. But does the substance live up to the suspense? Rare Earth Exchanges (REEx) unpacks the piece.
On the Money
Ham is right on a few fronts. He correctly underscores the strategic stakes of the U.S.–China rare earth race. China’s dominance in mining, refining, and magnet production is undisputed, and Washington’s urgency to secure supply chain independence via tariffs, alliances, and Arctic investments is fact-based. He also points to growing Canadian anxiety about U.S. leverage over critical minerals. Indeed, recent Angus Reid (opens in a new tab) polling shows that two-thirds of Canadians oppose giving the U.S. first-priority access to Canadian rare earths—a clear signal of domestic resistance.
The cited $8.6 billion in U.S. Arctic investments to expand its Coast Guard icebreaker fleet is also real and reflects a broader military-industrial pivot to challenge Chinese and Russian presence in the polar region.
Partly Cloudy with Isolated Fact Showers
Ham veers into speculative fiction when he revives talk of a U.S. annexation of Greenland—and extends it to include Canada and the Panama Canal. While former President Trump floated interest in Greenland back in 2019 (and again raised the topic at the start of his new administration), there is no credible policy framework or legal precedent supporting the annexation of sovereign nations like Canada. These suggestions serve more as narrative spectacle than analytical substance.
Moreover, labeling Trump a “strongman” while attributing the entirety of global economic turbulence to his administration discounts broader, bipartisan trends, such as supply chain reshoring, China de-risking, and industrial policy shifts that predate Trump’s presidency. Biden was certainly committed to reshoring supply chains with the CHIPS Act, among other initiatives.
The framing ignores deeper EU-China tensions, BRICS expansion, and widespread post-COVID realignment efforts.
Ham’s prose is steeped in emotionally charged language—“nihilistic attacks,” “quixotic,” “fatalistic”—which betrays a clear partisan bent. His glowing portrayal of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) as peaceful and alluring sidesteps the mounting debt traps, strategic encroachments, and stalled infrastructure projects reported across multiple continents.
Final REEx Reflections
Ham’s piece blends valid geopolitical concerns—such as Canada’s resource sovereignty and Washington’s rare earth urgency—with overwrought speculation and lopsided framing. While compelling as commentary, it risks misleading retail investors who need level-headed insight, not geopolitical fan fiction.
Check out the REEx Forum (opens in a new tab) for up-to-date discussions about rare earth-focused firms upstream, midstream, and downstream.
Leave a Reply