A Review Study Raising More Questions Than Answers, And the Prospect of Sino-based Academic Propaganda

Highlights

• Chinese researchers publish an academic review on rare earth elements.
• The review appears comprehensive but strategically omits critical geopolitical challenges.
• The study downplays China’s monopolistic control of rare earth markets.
• Environmental violations are not adequately addressed in the review.
• Strategic market manipulation is downplayed.
• The review serves more as a potential propaganda piece than an unbiased academic examination of global rare earth element dynamics.

---

In the ever-intensifying race for rare earth element (REE) dominance, a new academic review published in Minerals Engineering (opens in a new tab) (Vol. 216, September 2024, 108889) attempts to provide a sweeping analysis of the global REE landscape. Led by Hongli Diao and a cohort of Chinese researchers from various institutions, including Chongqing University (opens in a new tab) and Guangzhou Institute of Geochemistry (opens in a new tab), the paper lays out the challenges and innovations in the sector, purportedly offering a roadmap toward sustainability. Yet, beneath the scholarly veneer, the review exposes worrisome patterns—both in its omissions and its implicit deference to China’s monopolistic position.

An Exercise in Controlled Narrative?

At first glance, the Chinese authors’ review appears ambitious in its intent. It surveys REE classification, their indispensable role in advanced technologies, and their extraction’s geopolitical and environmental consequences.

For example, the authors highlight the unsustainable nature of current mining practices and the growing urgency for alternative solutions—such as recycling from electronic waste and developing substitute materials.

But one core hypothesis stands out in the Rare Earth Exchanges review. The authors argue that China’s current dominance in the REE sector is not merely a function of resource abundance but also a result of technological superiority and market efficiency. This is where the first red flags emerge in the Rare Earth Exchanges analysis. The review downplays the strategic weaponization of rare earths by Beijing—despite the well-documented history of China leveraging its supply chain control to exert geopolitical pressure, including past export restrictions aimed at Japan and the West.

A Carefully Curated Lens

The authors employ a comprehensive literature review, drawing data from databases like Science Direct, Scopus, and CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure). They claim to have rigorously analyzed global research trends, yet their selection of sources reveals a stark bias toward Chinese studies, many of which are state-funded. While they acknowledge issues like environmental degradation, their proposed solutions lack depth—glossing over how China’s own regulatory shortcomings have exacerbated illegal mining and toxic waste spills.

A Masterclass in Half-Truths

First, a sanitized overview of China’s environmental crisis will be used to assess the paper’s findings.

The review concedes that China’s rare earth sector has suffered from “ecological degradation”, but it largely treats this as a solvable byproduct of progress. The reality is far grimmer. Unregulated mining in Inner Mongolia and Jiangxi Province has left entire regions contaminated with radioactive waste, poisoned water supplies, and displaced communities.

The author’s treatment of this issue is alarmingly sterile. It fails to address the persistent non-compliance of Chinese mining firms or the government’s lax enforcement of environmental laws.

And what about the pathway to sustainable extraction and recycling?

The paper highlights emerging technologies to reduce the environmental impact of REE extraction, particularly via bioleaching and solvent extraction methods. However, it conveniently sidesteps the question of feasibility. China’s so-called “green” initiatives in rare earth processing remain pilot-scale experiments while the country continues to operate some of the most environmentally destructive REE mines on the planet.

Recycling, another supposed solution, is lauded in the review as a “growing opportunity” for REE supply stability. Yet, the authors fail to address a key obstacle identified by this analysis.  China’s own industrial policies have discouraged large-scale investment in REE recycling, as the government remains focused on maintaining its extraction dominance, part of the so-called two China rare earth bases.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this review is its lack of meaningful discussion on China’s strategic manipulation of the global rare earth market. The authors briefly acknowledge that REEs are a linchpin of international trade, but they avoid mentioning some very important key points:

• China’s history of cutting off REE exports to gain political leverage (e.g., 2010 embargo against Japan).
• State-backed price manipulation has distorted global REE markets and stifled Western efforts to diversify supply chains.
• The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) ‘s entanglement in mining operations ensured that rare earths remained a tool of economic coercion. Rare Earth Exchanges reports on this frequently.

This omission is not an oversight but a deliberate sanitization of China’s role in turning REEs into a geopolitical chess piece.

A Study That Serves Beijing’s Interests?

While the review attempts to present a global perspective, its selective framing raises serious concerns. It downplays China’s well-documented environmental and human rights violations, avoids addressing Beijing’s weaponization of rare earths, and offers vague, noncommittal solutions that serve more as academic padding than actionable insight.

Moreover, the heavy reliance on Chinese-funded research sources creates a potential conflict of interest, raising the question, at least from Rare Earth Exchanges’ vantage point: Is this paper truly an independent academic review, or is it another exercise in narrative control by Beijing-backed institutions?

A Call for Unbiased REE Research

If we are to address the rare earth crisis effectively, we cannot afford a scholarship that dances around the core issues. The global REE supply chain is facing unprecedented challenges, but sugar-coating China’s dominance does nothing to help nations seeking alternatives.  Western research institutions and policymakers must reject politically convenient narratives and instead push for hard-hitting, independent studies that expose the full scope of Beijing’s rare earth strategy.

While ambitious in scope, this paper ultimately falls short where it matters most. Unfortunately, its reluctance to call out the strategic risks of Chinese market control, environmental destruction, and industrial coercion renders it less of an academic contribution and more of a polished propaganda piece.

The rare earth war is being fought on multiple fronts—economic, technological, and academic. It’s time we start treating it as such.